In retrospect it was a mistake to start my post about bullying with a flight into nulsec, because it resulted in the predictable response of "You shouldn't fly into nulsec as newbie" and "Players must gatecamp to protect their territory". I don't know if I hadn't made it clear enough, or people just didn't *want* to understand what I wrote, that I was fully aware that newbies *will* be shot down in nulsec, because that *is* necessary to defend territory.

My point was that asymmetric PvP, whatever you want to call it (ganking, bullying, ...) is bad, because it is neither satisfying to the winner nor to the loser. It is negative sum PvP in which *both* sides are worse off, the loser because he didn't have a chance, and the winners because they spent hours watching that gate for somebody to come through and then he doesn't put up a fight.

The point of flying into nulsec was to show that this asymmetric PvP in EVE is the rule, not the exception. And just about every EVE player commenting on that thread confirmed that in different words: Being ganked when entering nulsec is "normal". EVE is institutionalized bullying. There is no fair PvP in EVE, or as one commenter said "If in EVE you get into a fair fight, somebody made a mistake".

Personally I don't like unfair fights. There is a deeper philosophical discussion to be had about the moral dimension of liking unfair fights in your favor against other players. But for now it suffices to say that I think it isn't very good game design, based on the assumption that good game design produces a maximum amount of fun for a maximum number of players.
- posted by Tobold Stoutfoot @ 8:52 AM Permanent Link
Links to this post

My only issue with this entire EVE experiment is that you had a hypothesis about what EVE was before ever playing it, and all of your actions since have been to prove that hypothesis correct. From what I can tell, as a reader, is that you never wanted EVE to be anything other than an over complicated Sandbox Gankfest from the start.

I'm not saying it isn't. What I'm saying is your opinion comes across preconceived before you ever logged in.

"But for now it suffices to say that I think it isn't very good game design, based on the assumption that good game design produces a maximum amount of fun for a maximum number of players."

By default excludes any PVP game design then as it is never fun to lose, which even in a "balanced" PVP setup disqualifies half of the players from having fun.

The question you should be asking is exactly a moral one: are "real sandbox" MMO games a mirror of our own darkest reality, unfettered by our own morals of "fairness" and consideration for the feelings of others? I would say that they are. Sandbox MMOs like EVE and Darkfall allow us to tap into those dark drives, to put others down and in so doing enable our own sense of superiority.

Watch any 3 children playing together for long enough and you will see a 2 vs 1 conflict developing. It is in our nature and EVE and Darkfall allow us to revel in it, indeed even say that is the way of the game, i.e. "institutionalized".

Is it right or wrong? Another question entirely again. Is it right to kill virtual people in any game?

I get the feeling that you would have enjoyed EVE more if it'd been a purely economic sandbox without the combat PvP parts. I mean, manipulating the market so as to give yourself an advantage is a part of playing the auction house that you have seemed to enjoy when writing about thr WoW economy.

Can I suggest if you feel like playing EVE some more that you leave aside the missions and 0.0 exploring for awhile and see if you can excel at trading or crafting. I'd be curious to see more of that side of the game and I think you might enjoy it.

Let's believe your a posteriori explanation of the last post and move on to this very interesting topic:Fair-PvP and Unfair-PvP.

I agree with you if you say that in the end a game has to be fair. That is: Everybody should have the same chances to 'win', or reach his goals if he just - spends enough time (some people might disagree here) and - spends the money to buy one account (not more - some people might disagree here) and - has the real world skills to do it (very few would disagree here :)

Where we disagree is the level at which this requirement has to be fulfilled.

For example I like to play Poker from time to time. Now, Poker is a very unfair game, because not a single round is ever balanced. Usually somebody has better cards or worse cards than you.But Poker is still fun, because it averages out if you play an infinite rounds of Poker - what you never do.

I like games that allow me to play together with other people to achieve something. That's why I like MMOs. I also like to play with players against other players. That's actually the usual definition of a game. Very few games in the history of mankind allowed you to beat non-player run entities. Usually that was not a game then, but a serious case.The evolutionary origin of games is training for a serious case.Thus, in most games you compete(d) against other people. In Chess, Soccer, Bowling, ...

Let's consider a tournament of chess. Winner is who wins three rounds of five. According to your understanding the game should be ended after the first round. Why? Because it's just not fair anymore after one of the players has won a round. Now, one is at a disadvatage and one at an advandate. You can also break it up even further: Let's consider some player loses a figurine and stops playing, because "Now it's just not fair anymore".

In fact, none of the balanced PvP is actually balanced for very long. Consider two groups of 5 Counter Strike players competing against each other. Suddenly team A loses a player and now the game has to be stopped, because "It's just not fair anymore".

I hope you get my point: A war (or conflict) consists of battles. The aim of the parties is to make these battles as unfair as possible to their advantage.

You cannot make every single part of a competetion fair. At some point somebody must be at a disadvatage and at some point somebody must be at an advantage. Otherwise the game would be as boring at throwing a dice exactly once and never again.

Strategy is about shaping a conflict in such a way that all battles you need to win are unfair.

In Arathi Basin, in WoW, suddenly 5 enemies apear at the mine. There are 3 defenders. Is that unfair? Yes, that situation is unfair, but the top-level of the game isn't. It's still 15:15 players. To make your team move in an intelligent way is just part of the game.

In EVE it is the same: A single battle can be unfair, but the very basic starting conditions aren't.

If you do not allow unfair PvP at some sub-level in an MMO you eliminate all strategy. Arena does this. It's all about tactics, no strategy.

In my opinion we lose a hell of a lot of fun, if we disallow strategy in an MMO.

Tobold, you are still doing it. Telling other people that waht they are doing is not "fun" for them. Let me quote you:

"My point was that asymmetric PvP, whatever you want to call it (ganking, bullying, ...) is bad, because it is neither satisfying to the winner nor to the loser."

And you know this how? I'm fairly sure that for some people wining a fight in which the other person never had a chance is about as fun as it gets. And for lots of people its at the very least a guilty pleasure.

You're extrapolating from "this wouldn't satisfy me to "this couldn't satisfy anyone" despite the clear evidence that plenty of people ARE satisfied by it.

If your point was that the loser is not likely to enjoy the experience much, than yes that's a case you could make. I don't believe, however, that you can make that same case for the winner. Even if you choose to categorise the winners in this situation as bullies, a charge which many others have brought considerable evidence to refute, you would still be falling into the victim's trap of believing that bullies can't really be enjoying their bullying behavior.That may be comforting to hear, but actually bullies generally only don't like being bullied themselves, they enjoy bullying just fine.

The conclusion to draw is not "EVE is a bad game because it allows bullying" but "EVE is a game that people enjoy for reasons I can't share".

If asymmetric PvP is bad, then:- using different gear in bossfights is bad, because others won't be able to top the dps meters (= less fun for them)- using different amounts of gold/stock/knowledge for AH trading is bad, because it'll cost someone else (= less fun for them)- using a gatherer addon is bad, because others won't be fast enough to compete for nodes (= less fun for them)- using expensive consumables in PVE is bad, because those who cannot afford it will end up less strong/fast (= less fun for them)- etc.- etc.

Just because you don't like player combat interaction, doesn't mean asymmetric PvP is bad. It just means you don't like player combat interaction in an asymmetric PvP environment.As others suggested, to minimize the chance you'll encounter player combat interaction, you should try trading or production in Eve.

A lady pilot made off with a can of my icicles last weekend. About 1.2m financial loss, and despite her flashing enticingly red, there was nothing I could do about it. Any action I took would lose me more ISK, mostly in time wasted. But such fun!

Now, certainly there's sadness associated with these losses - I'd much rather have those icicles (or that pair of logistics cruisers, oh my poor Guardians!) intact than not - but that's the deal I made with the game when I clicked in the login button. And it's still bloody good fun. For me.

If a player told me in chat that losing, or causing loss, were as strongly negative experiences to them as you describe... then I would probably suggest that perhaps they should consider not playing this game.

Look at it however you want, but Tobold is right - "unfair" PvP is more niche and "fair" PvP is more mainstream. Whichever is "better" depends on the individual.

We could, of course, dismiss every dissent this way:"We just feel differently."

ORWe could discuss our opinions, analyse them and find out where exactly we disagree. We could try to become more consistent within our own personality and use the opinions of other people to help us do this.

My only issue with this entire EVE experiment is that you had a hypothesis about what EVE was before ever playing it, and all of your actions since have been to prove that hypothesis correct. ... What I'm saying is your opinion comes across preconceived before you ever logged in.

That is actually a no-win situation. I have 7 years of blog archives in which I consistently expressed myself against PvP in general, and unfair PvP in particular. If I stand by this opinion when commenting EVE you'll say it was preconceived, but if I had changed my mind you'd accuse me of flip-flopping.

Tobold is right

Now that one is an even far more fundamental problem of discussing stuff on the internet. Why does everybody think that there even *is* a "right" and "wrong".

I do have an opinion about game design, about what is fun, and what isn't. But that opinion is mine, it is personal. Now I *tend* towards having middle-of-the-road opinions, and there are certainly numbers to back up the fact that outside Asia PvE games are more popular than PvP games. But that doesn't make somebody with a very different opinion "wrong".

I think the only absolute in that discussion is that we all have the right to express our different opinions, as long as we do it in a polite way. Or to quote Voltaire: "I don't believe what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I have the right to think that unfair PvP is a form of bullying, and you have the right to call me a carebear for that opinion.

Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to ever balance a RPG game because of all of the issues with classes, skills, gear and levels. Ultimately this is why I think FPS games exist because reducing combat to twitch based skills is as fair as it gets.

What type of elements do you like in a Competition/PvP Game ? (and even PvE)What Set of Rules, What Skills do you like to use when playing such a game, What Skills use dislike to use...

I think there is going to be a large overlap in answers from alot a readers, aswell as a large difference...

Since we all play MMO's we like the 'time spend variable', the longer we play the better we get.Since most of use dislike the spending $$ to gain a game advantage, we dislike the 'real life $$$ vairable'

So you like/dislike to use your social/tactical/strategic/intelectual/fast reflexes/script execution/teamwork/improvisation/etc/char min.max skills ?

I think the only absolute in that discussion is that we all have the right to express our different opinions, as long as we do it in a polite way. Or to quote Voltaire: "I don't believe what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I have the right to think that unfair PvP is a form of bullying, and you have the right to call me a carebear for that opinion.

I party agree, Tobold, but there is more.

If all we did was to repeat our opinion again and again and again and again and again and again.. well I weren't here.

There is more to it.When you say that you don't like unfair PvP it is possible to analyse what unfair PvP is.

By using logic we can find out that PvP is always unfair unless every match ends in a draw or (perhaps) a flip of a coin.

So, some properties of the parties involved need to be different.

So we arrived at a conclusion that everybody agrees on:We might not agree on wether unfair PvP is good or bad, but we do agree on the fact that we disagree on the definition of the word. That's an important result of our discussion.

The level at which PvP should be unfair is the real dissent, not wether PvP should be fair or not.

So we analysed the problem. We didn't just stick to our opinion, but actually created something: A consent.

So, discussing further, we should turn to the question on which level PvP should be fair which is a different question!

Discussion is more than agreeing that we all have the right to express our opinion. Otherwise I'd hardly care to participate.

I have the right to think that unfair PvP is a form of bullying, and you have the right to call me a carebear for that opinion.

I also have the right to tell you logic consequences of your opinion. If I manage(d) to prove that your opinion implies another opinion that you disagree with, you should change one of the opinions.

Since most of use dislike the spending $$ to gain a game advantage, we dislike the 'real life $$$ vairable'

That would be another subject for another EVE post in which I get crucified by the EVE players. Because from the point of view of a new player, EVE has quite a lot of real life $$$ influence:

1) You can buy ISK for real $ via PLEX.2) You can advance your character for real $ by paying for a subscription without playing, and just skill training3) You can get significant game advantages by paying for several accounts, and a large number of EVE player does that, a much larger number than for most other MMORPGs.

Thus I would say that if it is handled right, players don't necessarily dislike the possibility of gaining an advantage in game for real $$$. I don't see EVE players complaining about the various ways they can get advantages for cash, in spite of the fact that this is far, far more than you could in most other MMORPGs.

I like Tobold's point of view. It seems to be similar to mine so I watch what he says about stuff that might interest me.

If Tobold say's he doesn't like EVE or DF, and he tried those things, I empathyze with that. Good for me he went out and bought and played those games.

People who come here trying to counter argument on what he says seem to fail to understand 2 things:- You can't easily sway Tobold unless you can dramatically affect his experiences in a way he would be swayed (and that would be a good thing in the end, I guess)- We are talking about games here. It's supposed to be about having fun after a days work and relaxing a bit. Are you people THAT serious in absorbing stress and non enjoyable experiences on your leisure time? REALLY? And if you enjoy it and others don't is that a problem with you? Why? Because you would be playing alone? You guys feel real lonely out there, dont you? It's a sense of belonging you crave, isn't it? We all need to feel we have a place and a purpose in the world...

People will believe themselves to be right about something, even if it kills them. Or until it kills them.

By using logic we can find out that PvP is always unfair unless every match ends in a draw or (perhaps) a flip of a coin.

Sorry, but your logic here is flawed. Just because you can't achieve *perfect* balance doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive for reasonable balance. For fairness it is sufficient that the result is unpredictable enough so you can't foresee with 99% accuracy the winner. Thus most people would consider a soccer match as fair, even if no two soccer teams are exactly equal. They would however consider a soccer match in which one side had 11 players and the other side only 5 as unfair.

I'm not really sure of this post let alone the blog, you come into the game with a set bias and you only reinforce that by doing exactly what you wouldn't do in such a game.

Eve is a virtual world, a sandbox.

Flying around as a noob into low sec, or null sec and then acting surprised when somebody or a group kills you?

Are you going to walk down a dark alley past midnight and be surprised when you get mugged?

It's common sense and a integral part of the game that those players are able to do that, and you have the choice and free to do stupid things too.

Most do camp either to protect their territory from cyno ships, spies, ninja miners, to take your ship components, etc. They have very legitimate reasons for it. They don't have a way to ask for your noobie badge so they can let you go on your merry way even if you aren't a spy or picking up a ship deeper in from another station.

So yes they're going to blast you, and you know what, even popping a newbie ship will at least keep them on edge and provide some fun until the bigger targets do come through.

Honestly I wish you'd let some more experience players mentor you as if anything isn't unfair, it's your preset notions of a MMO and inability so far to catch the finer points of Eve.

Eve is far from perfect, very far, but what it does well, it goes great. Just like original sandbox games like Ultima Online, they were never for the majority of players, especially those that want 'fair'ness in their game, whatever that means.

You lost a 200k ship, whatever. It's a commodity in eve and easily replaced, you keep 10 or 20 in your hanger pre-fitted, get back out there and keep exploring. Losing you first couple of ships in Eve is the best thing you can ever have happen to you in the game, learn from it.

Sorry, but your logic here is flawed. Just because you can't achieve *perfect* balance doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive for reasonable balance. For fairness it is sufficient that the result is unpredictable enough so you can't foresee with 99% accuracy the winner. Thus most people would consider a soccer match as fair, even if no two soccer teams are exactly equal. They would however consider a soccer match in which one side had 11 players and the other side only 5 as unfair.

My logic isn't flawed. We just seem to have a different understanding of the word "fair".

Do you really want to steer the discussion in that direction ?Ok ..

Let's imagine thowing a coin. You win head, I win tails. Let's assume that the coin shows tail 50,00001% of the time and head 49.99999% of the time.

Is that fair? I don't think so.Thus, in my understanding, it's the nature of the different initial conditions that deterimine if something is fair, not the actual degree of 'difference'. Of course, at some point quantity has a quality all of its own.

What you call "reasonable balance" is actually exactly what I am talking about; I just named it differently.

Reasonable fairness (let's stick to that word now, please) is what we really disagree on. In my opinion a game is reasonably fair if the starting conditions are the same. In your opinion it is only reasonable fair, if the single battle is reasonably fair.

Thus, in your opinion a WoW battleground is unfair, because the single battle can be unbalanced; like 3 players vs. 5.

In my opinion it is fair, because the two more extra players of the team of 5 are missing somewhere else. Now, that's probably even worse for you, because you get two unfair situations.

In my opinion they compensate each other and the relevant question is wether it is fair on a team level. Your relevant question is, wether the BG is fair on player basis.

EVE is fair on a level that every player has every chances to join a corp and achieve his goals'.

Do we agree on that ?

PS: In my opinion a markt society is fair, if everybody has the same starting conditions. In your opinion everybody should be equalized every few years ?

Some people enjoy discussiong games even if you do not consider it relaxing. Unless you're my wife, please don't tell me what I should do to enjoy life. You do not have enough information to make a judgement.

"Thus, in your opinion a WoW battleground is unfair, because the single battle can be unbalanced; like 3 players vs. 5.

In my opinion it is fair, because the two more extra players of the team of 5 are missing somewhere else."

What the hell, Real Nils, if you limit your universe to a BG match you can't say it's fair because the 2 missing players are missing elsewhere. By that order of ideas, everything is fair because, you know, we're all in the same galaxy!

Thus most people would consider a soccer match as fair, even if no two soccer teams are exactly equal.If 11 random people play a match against the leading world champion, I would hardly call that an even match ( or in normal terms a fair match).

But since both teams play within the rules set by the game, it is called a fair match.

Same goes with the MMO's, All battles within any game are fair.. since we all have to obey the same rules.

"EVE is fair on a level that every player has every chances to join a corp and achieve his goals'."

Of course! If two players plan to reach a destiny, have similar shoes and equipment, and run at the same speed they have equal starting conditions. Now let's assume that one of them starts running earlier. He'll reach the destiny first and can set traps to the the other player, who is still capable to reach it.

Let's admit it: all new players have equal chances. But all the older players will limit and decrease those chances. That's pretty obvious. Unlike regular MMOPRG, where anyone can get gear without the interference of the older player's base.

As good as Tobolds blog is to discuss MMOs in the comments, it is unfortunately not perfect. Perhaps I tried to discuss too difficult things in the comment section.

I will try to stay bit more on the surface in the future.

Fake Nils: Stop trolling, please. A discussion cannot be 'won' by trying to abuse the arguments of others. By having other people aggressively analyse the consistency of your own opnion(s) it is instead an enlightening process.

@Guthammer If I showed up with my 42M SP character doing the same thing, I would be shot down the exact same way.Exactly. It's like running into a 10 man WoW raid solo, and get disappointed because you got killed instantly.

@Tobold And then I also hate to win against another human being. Because I don't enjoy inflicting pain on other players.Then I suggest you stop making gold through the AH, because your actions are definitely hurting other player's profits.

What the hell, Real Nils, if you limit your universe to a BG match you can't say it's fair because the 2 missing players are missing elsewhere. By that order of ideas, everything is fair because, you know, we're all in the same galaxy!

1) Only if the entire universe were a zero sum game, which it isn't.

2) I never said that the level at which we judge should be the upper most. Instead, I said that that's where our the differences are. By accepting that, we could move this discussion forward.

MMO's can't work as PVP because MMO's are built on Longevity and progression. The oldtimers and those that spend the most time playing will always be those people it is pointless to play against.

Well that's the fun in eve. A 6 month character (or a group there of) can easily beat a 3yr old character, if he picks a better setup, has better skills in a particular area, etc etc.. So this argument holds no ground in Eve.

There are literally hundreds of different things you could do, and tons of other PvP options.

This ONE situation is completely unrepresentative of EvE as a whole, and portraying it as such is a flagrant deception.

You PERSIST in refusing to acknowledge that the "unfair fight" you speak of is not fair at all. What you experienced was a TINY FRACTION of the "fight" the corp you were podded by is fighting.

The "fight" isnt a meaningless skirmish (the only type of PvP in WoW, so I can see where your problem comes from), but a massive war encompassing systems and hundreds of pilots.

If you could understand that this strategic warfare is inherently much more "fair" than a single border patrol, I think you could get over the Wall that blocks your reasoning.

EvE's strength is always going to be realism on a large scale. For example while the Warfare and Economy are much more akin to RL than any other game, single engagements are going to be inherently lopsided (a by-product of the strategic warfare, that is almost based entirely on setting up unfair fights) and you are permanently in your ship instead of walking into a store to buy things.

1. As other people have pointed out, the more strategy there is the to gameplay the more likely that tactical combat will be wildly unfair (since the whole POINT of having a strategy is to make things tactically unfair). For example if you play a Total War game, the battles are much more unfair if you play the campaign mode than if you play a single battle since that gameplay mode introduces a strategic element.

If is impossible to make all tactical combat fair without removing the strategic element to a game. People who like their games to have a strategic element don't like that.

In MMORPGs there's a sliding scale of strategy vs. tactics with Eve 0.0 warfare at one end and area battles at the other. Different people like different places on this spectrum, neither is inherently more fun than the other and neither is "evil."

2. Playing out an unfair battle can be very fun. If there's an unfair battle then you can have goals like escape, try to take a few of them down with you, hold off the enemy until reinforcements arrive, try to kill all of the enemy without getting any loses at all, try to kill all of the enemy before reinforcements arrive etc. And if you can actually win a battle that's tilted against you, then that is very fun indeed. For some people, having every battle be exactly evenly matched gets boring. Some of the most fun I've had in MMORPGs has been doing massed (nearly) hopeless suicide charged of lowbie characters against high level gankers. Sometimes they even worked :)

Some people really like being the underdog or having other forms of unfair combat and some people don't. Neither choice is inherently more fun and neither is "evil."

3. Many people prefer PvP that simulates wars rather PvP that simulates sports. It is simply impossible to design a PvP system that simulates a real life war in which each and every battle is tactically balanced. It would feel forced and artificial and it would ruin the whole feeling (for the people who prefer PvP that simulates war).

The benefit of Sport PvP is that its fair and that there are rules, but War PvP has benefits as well:-It produces real history.-It is much more capable of producing surprises.-It does a better job of making the world feel "real."-It is better for supporting player created political units.-It allows for much deeper and long term strategy, diplomacy, etc.-It allows for a much more varied PvP experience.

Now for some people all those benefits trump the benefits that Sport PvP provides and for some people they don't. Neither Sport PvP or War PvP are inherently more fun than the other and neither is "evil." It's a matter of tase.

Now going out of your way to harass people in ways that doesn't benefit you at all (like killing newbies) is a rather jerkish thing to do but saying that every single form of combat in which both sides are not tactically balanced is unfun and "evil" is using a very broad brush.

Also how well Eve does at living up all of that is a whooooole 'nother question, but you weren't talking about Eve specifically but instead about ANY form of PvP in which the sides aren't equal or any kind of gameplay that results in PvP between unequal sides.

Let's assume that the coin shows tail 50,00001% of the time and head 49.99999% of the time. Is that fair? I don't think so.Thus, in my understanding, it's the nature of the different initial conditions that deterimine if something is fair, not the actual degree of 'difference'.

There are degrees of fairness, not just digital on and off. A 49.99999% chance of winning would for most people be indistinguishable from a 50% chance, and thus would be considered as fair. That is fundamentally different from a PvP battle of 1 frigate against 3 battlecruisers in EVE.

Furthermore I would say that not everybody has the same starting conditions, because not everybody started the game on day 1.

Are you going to walk down a dark alley past midnight and be surprised when you get mugged?

Are you saying that people who get mugged in a dark alley should not be allowed to complain about the general level of crime in the area? Or allowed to have a strong opinion about the mugger being evil?

Because that is just what it is: Just like I would prefer a European city with a reasonably low level of crime to a US city where being mugged in a dark alley is "normal", I would also prefer MMORPGs to not allow muggers in dark alleys.

Who are you to tell me that I am not allowed to express such a preference?

I think part of the reason why most people find "unequal" pvp to be entertaining and a "you should have known better" event, is the lack of a visual component that triggers the "this isn't really fair" portion of the game.

Let me offer an analogy, which in my opinion is the real world analogy of current pvp systems. Imagine a group of 12 year old kids show up to play baseball in a park. The park looks safe, the field is pristine, and the diamond is kept immaculate. So they start playing baseball. Now a professional baseball team shows up and challenges them to a game for "fun". I'm sure we find this scenario unfair and some of us would be inclined to call it to the pros' attention. It would be even more distasteful if the pros proceeded to "peacock" and scream "in your face" as they hit home run after home run. I think most of us would find the aformentioned horrible if we were witnessing it directly and dismiss any pretense or excuse on the part of the pros to engange in that behavior.

So what does that have to do with our percieved imbalance of pvp? Well these negative responses to imbalances aren't triggered because there is no visual queues in the brain to stimulate the same level of response as in the analogy. If a noob and his ship is blown up its only pixels. The ship being destroyed in no way, shape, or form evokes any kind of sympathetic response. The only response is the laughter of seeing a ship get totally dominated by another player. Because in our minds, even if we know the ship is of inferior value, it still evokes the feeling of triumph and dominance because it lacks the other visual cues that trigger the "you bastard that is not cool" response.

Use whatever analogy works. Baseball isn't doing it for you? Well imagine a bunch of 12 year old soccer kids playing against Manchester United. That is what the current design of pvp is, and probably why the recipient of the asswhooping doesn't find it fair or fun.

Nothing can ever be truly equal in pvp since gear/ship/equipment differences exist. But at the very least 12yr olds (lowbies/noobies) shouldn't be allowed to play against Pros (high level/imbalanced gear ratios). Unless of course they go looking for an asswhooping. =)

The implication of this post and the previous one is that you are trying to tell us what we should find 'fun'. Maybe you could have worded it slightly better so that you were simply telling us what it was that you didn't find 'fun'.

Fun is like religion; I have my fun and you have yours. Arguing over who's fun is the 'right' fun just leads to trouble.

You have come to EVE to try it out, but dismiss those who try to explain it to you and suggest other ways of playing it that you might find more enjoyable.

I know players who play EVE purely as an economic simulator and never undock, playing the markets and making a tonne of ISK that they'll never spend. I also know players who derive their fun from sitting on a gate for hours at a time and popping anyone who comes through. These are both valid ways to play the game, because the game is ultimately what you want it to be.

You seem to be focussing on the combat in EVE as being its main failing, when you can actually play the game without ever taking part in combat. We're simply trying to help you understand that. But, like a dog with a bone, you've fixated on the one thing in EVE that you don't like and seem to be taking umbrage that you are forced to do it, when you are never 'forced' to do anything.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it till I think you finally understand: EVE is not WoW. You are not stuck on rails, forced to follow a predetermined path, to get to a specific 'end'. You are not restricted in how you progress, or measure your progression. You are not even asked to grind and grind to get a specific shiney item. What you do in EVE is up to you. Ultimately if you end up not having fun its your own damn fault, we're simply trying to help you find something which you might find fun. And yet you seem to dismiss such advice, from people who know the game and its intricacies, as coming from griefers and gankers.

We want you to have fun playing the game that we enjoy, we understand that being ganked is no fun and are trying to point you at ways of playing which will limit such occurrences.

Sometimes it seems that you are simply trolling us (eve players) for traffic and notoriety. I know that such behaviour is beneath you (as you hav e stated many times in the past), but that is one way that your posts on EVE can be interpreted. If you are truly interested in finding fun in EVE then please listen to the people that know the game and try some of the things they are suggesting, if not, then stop playing. Or, to coin an oft used phrase in New Eden: "Go back to WoW, N00b." (Said with tounge firmly in cheek ;D)

Just a suggestion, coming from an EVE player that doesn't enjoy being on the receiving end of what you call "bullying".

Try industrialism for one.

Join an alliance that has territory in 0.0. You will quickly learn why any neutral entering your space is an immediate threat. Wars are constant. And a newb that accidentally wanders into null-sec is doubly suspicious.

I have done both and find I have struck a perfect balance of pvp and how I prefer to participate in it.

You've written about EVE in an honest and perceptive way - and I've taken very little exception to what you've said.

I think it's time for you to throw in the towel - the longer you play with a bad taste in your mouth the more you're going to come to resent the game.

A lot of the issues you're coming across have more to do with human nature than with anything CCP could have deliberately constructed. Eve doesn't hold your hand, or pretend to be anything it's not - it is Lord of the Flies in space.

All of this has absolutely nothing to do with fair - fair is a fallacy.

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that in a very competitive PvP game, whoever starts first has more chances of winning. And for a new player, starting today, he has a very long road to take if he wants to be a competitive part of the action. There's no way around it. In any other game, like WoW, i could be doing PvP with reasonably chances whatever i had started 5 years ago or 5 weeks ago.

And of course there are several ways to enjoy EVE, or any other game. That's not so different from WoW. You want to gank? Gank. You want to stay near an AH and make money you don't spend? Stay there and make business. You want to RP? Go RP. You want to raid? Go and raid. What's the difference? None, if you look closely. Just because WoW has a linear path besides the sandbox game doesn't mean i have to follow it.

If you've ever gone against a serious pre-made in AB then you know that 15x15 isn't fair at all.

What makes it so unfair? Pre-mades will have voice communication, a leader, and people who will listen. Serious advantages for sure.

They also usually have gear that is better then the average player.

These fights aren't fair. On the other hand, they ARE tremendously fun. The complete domination of a weaker opponent through executing perfect tactics IS rewarding, even if you outgear/outnumber your opponent.

So it isn't fair to say that an unfair fight isn't fun for anyone. Lots of people enjoy these kinds of fights.

I would even say I'd rather win an unfair fight, then lose a fair one.

The only thing that needs to be there is some effort on my part to MAKE the battle unfair.

Did I put together an overpowered group to dominate AB? Do we have voice communication? Have we decided who will call out orders? Do we all agree to follow them? Did I put in effort to get the best possible gear/enchants/gems/spec to do the most damage/healing?

If I put in 200 hours of more effort then the guy who is going into the battleground the first time, I should have an advantage. I should crush him into the ground.

And yes, it is fun. It is the reward for working on PvP. If that guy wants to come fight fair, he needs to put the effort in.

why is it so bad to lose? without someone losing, there can be no competitive endeavors really. In a setup with more of a "sport" feeling, like a FPS or arena's in WOW you still have losers-- they just aren't deprived of an asset permanently like in EVE.

And also, to be fair, EVE has quite a few systems in place to lessen the impact of such a hit so that it really isn't nearly as big of a deal as we all make it out to be.

If I showed up with my 42M SP character doing the same thing, I would be shot down the exact same way."

This is so true and really highlights to me one of the major differences in the EVE model. There may seem like so much imbalance exists when in reality the "imbalance" has nothing to do with each individual players for the most part, but the situation that a player finds himself in due to an error in judgement or lack of knowledge about his environment.

It has been largely contended that the most valuable resource a pilot in EVE can have is is knowledge about the game overall. I think that is VERY true and the real measure of a noob or non-noob.

I wish the people who are entirely ignorant about EvE would stop embarrassing themselves by speaking, it is jarringly obviously you know nothing of its gameplay.

All those I speak of seem to consider PvP the only aspect of EvE.

Additionally, they contend that it is a game based on getting the "biggest ship" so you be leet pvp. And that since other players already have big ships you will never catch them.

Firstly, as SO MANY people have mentioned, pvp is one aspect of the game only.

Secondly, not only does one persons ship have little bearing on PvP but there is NO linear advancement. You advance in whatever way YOU decide. Its not a guided path to the "level cap" where you become equal with everyone.

Not only that, but you dont even NEED a big ship to participate meaningfully in pvp. The smallest ships are just as useful as the biggest, a necessity in fact.

The only way your arguments have any bearing is if -for some retarded reason- you want to fly around SOLO and fight anything, which will never happen anyway.

Lastly, @Fake Nils:

Yes you DO have to follow the linear path. Is there any other way to reach the "end-game" and level-cap than going through levels 1-80?

The point is that in a very competitive PvP game, whoever starts first has more chances of winning. And for a new player, starting today, he has a very long road to take if he wants to be a competitive part of the action.

That is the opinion that is expressed in many of these EVE posts.

It's true to a point. But it isn't the whole story.

In most PvP, in most games, you cannot expect to be just as powerful the first time you enter and several months down the road.

That only means that there is incentive to continue. Some reward.

At a certain point thought, the rewards slow down, even stop. There are "Max level" weapons, armor, ships, etc. Once you hit that, even if you spend another year PvPing, you won't get better.

The other thing is that usually the upgrades aren't that fantastic the higher you get.

In this EVE experiment, Tobold went after T2 weapons. Many commenters pointed out that the upgrade to T2 from a modified T1 weapon was so minor as to be worse in some situations.

The same thing exists in WoW. If you have T9, getting T10 is certainly better, but it isn't like it's so much better that it nullifies the advantages of skill. A better player can do more damage in T9. And T10 won't mask the skills of a bad player.

If it takes a six months to get T10, that might seem like a cost of entry. But the reality is, people who put in that six months will still lose to you. Some, who know what they are doing, will trounce you. But the advantage is so minor as to not matter. And it also rewards players who have invested the time.

1) You can buy ISK for real $ via PLEX.2) You can advance your character for real $ by paying for a subscription without playing, and just skill training3) You can get significant game advantages by paying for several accounts, and a large number of EVE player does that, a much larger number than for most other MMORPGs.

Indeed they don't complain, because it works both ways, you can also buy gametime with isk, Eve's in game currency.

On principle, I would never have expanded beyond one account if that wasn't the case. Three years into the game, having focused most efforts on PvE and industry, making isk is now easy enough that I don't pay for any of my several accounts with rl currency. Not because I grind for hours on end every week, but because there's smarter ways of doing things. Even bought a few 40-50m SP characters, also with in game currency.

And yet, when I started the game, I also felt I had started too late, that I'd never catch up to the, now 100m+ SP players. That I had missed out on all the good stuff, like T2 bpo lottery for instance.

You need more then a few weeks to be competitive, but you don't need years, just a few months if you specialize. Don't put too much stock into the certificates, they're meant as basic guidelines, not holy books. Elite certificates are for showing off mainly.

I've always been a jack of all trades, wanting to explore every facet of the game I'm playing (except alliance leadership) so it took me a little longer, a year, year and a half. More for capitals, but, capitals are 100+ member corp level or alliance tools, not solo player tools.

For PvP in three months you can go from zero to hero in covops scouting/scanning, which is an incredibly vital role, although granted seldom receiving the credit it deserves. Other quick skilling include Interceptors, EW frig, AF or good old Blackbird/T1 EW cruiser.

Finally, on fair fights, I would concede that Eve is a haven for griefers. I too once thought asymmetric combat was not my cup of tee, and that the lack of fair fights in Eve was a bad thing. Yet there is a place for nice guys in Eve too.

It takes some time to get over that notion for those of us who value fairness. To start to see the larger picture, that the fight doesn't start when one ship locks another, but in the measures taken prior to the fight, to either secure local superiority or to enhance security of your operation. In choosing your friends, even.

This goes on all levels, from single ship to 5000 head alliances.The comparison between competition and war seen in the comments here is quite apt, Eve being the latter.

Because that is just what it is: Just like I would prefer a European city with a reasonably low level of crime to a US city where being mugged in a dark alley is "normal", I would also prefer MMORPGs to not allow muggers in dark alleys.

Like I said a couple of time before, New Eden is a dark, harsh, rough universe. Expect to be ganked at every gate, expect all your mining cans to be flipped and expect every contract on the market to be a scam.

That is the harsh reality of Eve. Some people like it, most people don't.

Why do people feel the need to come and defend EVE by saying Tobold is doing this wrong and blah blah blah.

It's pretty obvious Tobold's likes and dislikes don't match up with what an EVE player likes/dislikes.

So it's a complete waste of time to sit here and try to argue with the mans opinion.

How about instead of simply arguing and saying he's wrong you all point him towards activities he'll actually enjoy like Spinks and a few others have?

Onto the actual post we'll I pretty much agree and thats more or less why I eventually got bored of EVE. Flying missions in high sec space ends up being much more samey then doing say WoW quests and without joining a player corp I was pretty much stuck doing just that.

As a new player the game does a very poor job of even explaining where I would look for a corp, or how the market system worked. EVE is a game that while playing I admired and liked for it's possibilities, but quickly realized it wasn't the game for me...

Just a question though to you EVE players. How in the world is it fun to have to be stationed at a gate or whatever for hours just in case someone jumps through it???

If you are a zergling sent out on a scouting mission only to die horribly, I imagine that Starcraft seems like a horribly unbalanced game.

But it's not, it's very well balanced. It's just that the zergling isn't the player in player vs. player, the player is the one directing the zergling. It's a game of army vs. army, not unit vs. unit.

Nulsec PVP in Eve is exactly the same. Your frigate is not a player in nulsec PVP, the actual PVP is between alliances as a whole. And looking at the history of great alliance wars, it seems to be a pretty well balanced game. It may not be the game you want to play, just as many WoW players have no interest in raiding. But that doesn't mean that either is badly designed.

You don't think you were a potential threat? You could have been a scout. You could have been a cyno alt. You're part of a team, not the team. If you're not part of a team, then you don't have any business being in nulsec any more than someone should be trying to solo Onyxia.

And btw I don't know how much you're aware of it, but this is a sandbox and virtually the entirety of nulsec is currently in the midst of a great war involving literally thousands of players. Nulsec is never a picnic, but gatecamps are very tight right now.

I would very strongly suggest that if you want to understand Eve PVP, find someone that will let you be a tackler in a big fleet battle with several hundred players. You'll get a very different view of the game.

- We are talking about games here. It's supposed to be about having fun after a days work and relaxing a bit. Are you people THAT serious in absorbing stress and non enjoyable experiences on your leisure time? REALLY?

Which is exactly why I consistently point out that there needs to be a redefining of where we stand as gamers in relation to calling something a game, or calling it a virtual world....especially in relation to the effect that real world money can have on certain experiences.

Games put people on a level playing field through the mechanics of rulesets and a design philosophy that embraces this concept. Virtual worlds, on the other hand, have very loose structures and have historically shown to be more social than competitive.

That's not to say that WoW is not social, or that EVE was not designed to be a "game", but at the end of the day we as players are left with making these distinctions based on our own observations and how those observations relate to what we consider fair and balanced.

It's the reason you see certain commentors using sports as a means to quantify their views, while others use real world examples of border encounters to validate their views.

Fairness, right alongside "fun" is too subjective to lump into a "fit all" category for every individual player. Tobold clearly makes this distinction in every post that he has ever made. His ability to summerize the extent of his enjoyment is not meant to be viewed as an attack on a game like EVE, but rather his own level of enjoyment as the game mechanics have affected his own personal experience while playing.

The main thing that I take away from all of these EVE posts, is that the problems seems to stem from the fact that most encounters in EVE revolve around the notion that "player generated" content(or encounters) fall into a very loosely defined and controlled realm where the players ability to control things falls outside of the scope of "normal gameplay" due to a lack of information/education and a somewhat bad UI that fails to support this as well as it could.

You realize that you've effectively argued that the United States is a bully, right? (ok, it is but it's still impolite to say so out loutd apparently). Same situation. Strangely enough the rest of us can deal with it.

If I wanted a fair fight I'd go play a deathmatch in Quake or Team Fortress. EVE is trying for a more real world feel to it's politics and it's wars. It is succeeding. Just because this leaves a bad taste in your mouth does not make it bad (heck real world politics leaves a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths, we still deal with it), it just makes it different and more realistic. We have spies, they are relevant, unlike other mmos. We have pirates, again relevant, not in other mmos. we have an industrial system and at least some form of market where you can actually make a profit at at all levels (in most MMOs it's only certain items that are profitable, the rest are just there to skill up - at a loss - to get to the profitable items), we have scouting as a VERY important element of fleet operations. Show me a PvP system in any other MMO where it is as critical.

You go to an area where territorial wars happen and get killed. You can use the map to find out who controls certain areas of space, did you get into diplomatic contact with them to see if they would let you fly in their space? (admittedly for an individual pilot pretty hard to swing without contacts - you are making good contacts, right?). You do realize that a common form of scouting involves the use of characters that look like newbies? Get off your high horse, they are not killing you because your are a noob, they are killing you because you could be a scout. It is not bullying, it is sound military practice.

Incidentally the reason they want the territory? T2, you need moons to make T2 ships, only moons in low sec and 0.0 provide the materials. Only 0.0 space is controllable (mainly thanks to bubbles). You just ran into HOW it is controlled.

Let's admit it: all new players have equal chances. But all the older players will limit and decrease those chances. That's pretty obvious. Unlike regular MMOPRG, where anyone can get gear without the interference of the older player's base.

Guess they don't have gear score and achievement linking on your server.

Nor have you ever tried tanking or healing a heroic in newbie 80 gear.

I was only trying to show that even WoW can be considered a sandbox game. You can do pretty much everything: PvP, business, raid, fish, RP, swim, explore, kill, chat, etc. I'm sure you can agree with that. Even if gear grinding it's what most people do it's not actually a requirement - only if you want to raid and reach the end game. And even after that you can still do other things. Like PvP or spend your day at the AH bashing socials and other altruists.

Well, to be able to play a PvP game you have to be able to not take it personally when a bunch of more-experienced players gank you on a regular basis. Its something not everyone can do. I know I can't. It does seem kinda anti-social to me, but hey, its not real-life, its a game.

The attraction of these games for some players is the steep learning curve and level of difficulty. This high level of difficulty makes the game more rewarding when you finally are able to achieve some level of success in PvP.

For nulsec wars, almost anyone can be useful as long as they have a frig and a point. You can start an account now and be tackling battleships in the war tonight, but you've got to have the friends to get a spot in an alliance (Or an account on Something Awful or Reddit and kudos to them for welcoming newbies.)

I'm going to break down your post and show you how everything is wrong once again, but after that I'm sorry you will just have to re-read until you understand. I can only repeat myself so muany times before its clear the problem is with your comprehension.

No, it's your bank account.

Wrong, as many people have explained its neither time nor money, but player skill alone in PvP. How else could entry-level frigates be vital to the success of massive fleets?

Not to mention you refuse to accept PvP is only ONE ASPECT of EvE. And that for WoW you can buy gold just as easily.

I was only trying to show that even WoW can be considered a sandbox game. You can do pretty much everything: PvP, business, raid, fish, RP, swim, explore, kill, chat, etc. I'm sure you can agree with that.

PvP= generally regarded as some of the worst in the business

business= generally regarded as poorly thought out and weak compared to most other games

raid= ok

fish= are you joking?

RP= another joke right? Ignoring the fact that barely anyone RPs in the lamefest RP world of WoW, but EvE's world simulation is like perma-roleplay.

kill=not sure what you even mean by this, but you are actually VERY WRONG. In WoW do you not revive after every death? So you really aren't killing anyone. In EvE you ACTUALLY kill people, and they revert to a clone they previously purchased.

chat=welcome to the internet, where every game and most website has some form of chat

So no, I really can't agree with you on your blatant falsehoods.

Even if gear grinding it's what most people do it's not actually a requirement - only if you want to raid and reach the end game. And even after that you can still do other things. Like PvP or spend your day at the AH bashing socials and other altruists.

Ok, other than the 0.01% who twink and stay at lvl 29 to PvP (on alts), the point of the game for everyone else is leveling and reaching end-game. Ridiculous argument.

And you only need one account. Pretty cool, hm?

You only need one account for EvE too. And if you think someone multiboxing has an advantage in PvP you clearly have never even played the game. Once again pvp is the only thing you comment on.

When battles can get up to the hundreds of players i don't think one person controlling 3 ships is going to impact things. Especially when the other side has the same amount of ships conceivably all piloted by one pilot. (just an example)

All of you players arguing with Tobold are making the game and it's players look horrible for any outsider, you are simply re-enforcing his point with every troll post you make.

"Oh wow it's a big realistic world where you can get killed by anyone at any time! You're completely powerless and the game is so slow to play! It's great!"

You're all a bunch of masochists.

As for J. DangerouS and "WoW is the easiest and most skilless game ever!" Then I assume you're an Arena Gladiator who defeats raid bosses and gets world firsts? Right? You're going to win the PvP tournament too I suppose?

No? You don't do any high end content in WoW because it's too easy, right? Failure.

Tobold, I think you're missing the entire point of Eve. WoW and other themepark games are all about tactics, limited parallel advancement tracks (something you were big on several years ago as i recall), and giving players 'appropriate challenges'.

Eve, on the other hand, is all about strategy, is massively parallel w/r to advancement and allows players to set their level of challenge themselves.

The tactics have their place in Eve: How do you defeat the Worlds Collide mission in a Drake? When is it a good idea to spend time in Jita 0.01ISK-ing other sellers of equipment (hint: almost never)? However, there is another layer on top of all of these tactics: Strategy.

Here are some strategic questions that an Eve pilot must ask themselves: As a combat pilot, what can I do to make sure that I don't lose resources when I fight? Remember, losing your ship costs you resources, not just the 30 seconds it takes to respawn at the graveyard. As a trader, what economic and behavioral principles can I employ to maximise my profits? Should I trade in highsec, lowsec or nullsec, or some combination of the three? What can I do to protect my cargoes? As a Corp CEO, what will the consequences be of allying us with this other corporation? What should the corporation be doing to support our eventual move into WH space?

Strategy and the strategic game are all about learning to assess the consequences of your actions. You are actively working to minimise risk. There's no comprable mechanic in WoW.

One perceived problem is that it often looks like there areconsequences to YOUR actions, but relatively few consequences to the actions of others. It is very difficult to pay back someone for a wrong that they've done to you. Lets give an example from real life: Recently, freighter moving 20 Billion ISK worth of BPOs was ganked in highsec on its way to make a sale in Jita. 10 Billion worth of the cargo dropped and was picked up by the ganker. The hauler failed at the strategic game; There are lots of things that he could have done to minimize his exposure to risk that weren't done. He should have scouted the route first. He should have paid another player to web him off each gate, he could have done this for 0.001% of the value of his cargo. He should have separated his cargo into multiple smaller batches. He should have hired a pilot or two to man the fore and aft gates of each system he was travelling through to watch out for gankers (another 0.001% each). Is it the freighter pilot's fault that he got ganked? No it isn't. But there are dozens of things that he could have done to help ensure safe delivery of his cargo.

To continue from the previous post: Now, assuming the hauler has a new goal of getting revenge, he is going to have a very, very hard time getting it and here's why:

1. The players that destroyed his ship don't fly around in multibillion isk ships. Causing the economic loss that he suffered to his tormentors is going to take a long time, and require either lots of patience or lots of isk to hire a mercenary company to do it for him.2. The gankers are willing to trade security status for isk, the revenge seeker must be willing to trade security status for satisfaction.

Sounds awful, right? Well, let's look at it from the other side; The gankers are making a different tradeoff than the freighter pilot. The freighter pilot traded his time and economic knowledge for ISK. The gankers have traded their time and security status for ISK. Also, while there is money to be made suicide ganking, income is wildly variable, whereas income from trading is steady with enough market knowledge (Gevlon proves this quite nicely). One can only suicide gank a limited number of times before CONCORD will automagically blow your crap you up just for visiting a highsec system. After that number is surpassed, one is left with two choices: Have highsec systems be forever barred for that character, and live with a logistical nightmare, or spend weeks grinding first lowsec belt rats (and leaving yourself open to being ganked in return), then piddly level 1 missions to restore your security rating.

Suicide gankers and other forms of pirates have consequences for their actions, they're just not always visible to their victims. In their strategic game, they trade complexity in combat for complexity in logistics - attacking the unprepared is easy, getting needed supplies is hard and expensive in both time and ISK.

This is already way too long, but I'd like to leave you with one thought if you don't take anything else away: WoW and other themeparks are fun, they're designed to be, but players have limited choice in how challenging they want their content to be. Eve and other sandboxes are also fun, but they empower YOU, the player to dictate how often you deal with setbacks and impossible odds.

The implication of this post and the previous one is that you are trying to tell us what we should find 'fun'.

That is your interpretation, and it is wrong. This whole blog is me stating my opinion from my point of view, so here I am basically saying "I don't find this fun". And I even pepper my posts with modifiers like (see original post) "Personally I don't like unfair fights."

I NEVER said "nobody likes unfair fights" or "you shouldn't like unfair fights". I said *I* and *personally* don't like unfair fights, and then *YOU* interpret that in a completely wrong way, and blast me for things I never said.

And as to those people who say that I am "wrong" about EVE, that isn't even technically possible. I'm saying what I don't like, and where I don't have fun, and it is impossible for you to know better than me what is fun to me.

But the reaction of some EVE fanbois only enforces my opinion that they are bullies, because here they are trying to bully me on my own blog into not expressing my personal opinion, because my opinion is disagreeable to them. Hint: That won't work. Actually, the worse they behave, the stronger my argument becomes.

Any day on which I can provoke Syncaine to write a badly articulated angry response on his blog is a good day. :)

I don't think anyone particularly cares that you PERSONALLY don't find it fun. People care that you are *calling them bullies.* A large part of EVE is the simulation of all out war, if you don't like that, fine. However, the people on a given side of that war are not "bullies" for participating in it.

Don't take getting ganked in EVE personally. They aren't ganking YOU, they are ganking a potential spy within the context of the world of EVE Online. You really need to be able to keep up that distinction.

If it was this kind of behavior in real life I would *totally agree with you* but within the context of the world of EVE Online, it simply isn't bullying, and isn't anti-social behavior.

Noone said your opinions were wrong. But you seem to have a few misconceptions about the game that are hampering your conceivable enjoyment.

Again you are criticizing me for things I never said, and which you only imply. I never said that I even wanted to participate in PvP or win. The whole flight to nulsec was simply to demonstrate that gatecamping happens all the time in EVE, and I haven't found a single EVE player who says that this is a misconception of mine. You only argue whether gatecamping is "justified", and I'm expressing my personal opinion about games in which ganking is "justified" or even required.

Basically we all agree that EVE is an extremely harsh and unfriendly game, where people not in the know are likely to suffer bad losses, and that this isn't the game for me. Only I think that I still have the right to try this out, and write about my experiences and thoughts, while you think that my thoughts cast a negative light on EVE and should therefore be censored. I'm not easily censored.

And I do hope you realize the inherent irony of insisting that EVE is a sandbox game in which everybody can do what he wants, and in the same breath telling me that I'm playing it wrong.

And keep the discussion civil, I had to delete several posts in which people were calling each other retards and the like.

Talking of which: I don't consider "bully" to be an insult at the same level of "retard". There is even a game from Rockstar where you can play one. I just can't come up with a better word for somebody who finds enjoyment in gatecamping. Suggestions?

I just think you aren't understanding the reasons for gatecamping. It isn't because they enjoy beating up people weaker than them (which is what I associate with "bully"), but rather that they are protecting their home space. What they enjoy is being part of an alliance that owns some space in the game, and camping key gates that are entrances to that space is what you have to do to keep that space.

I don't really know what term to use, it doesn't seem like there needs to be a term for it specifically. You seem to be associating this behavior with something similar to "griefer" (something I would consider close to bully like behavior) and I think that is mistaken.

Indeed, we are at somewhat of a stalemate as far as that conversation goes, but again, I think the reason the EVE community reacted so hotly to this is because in their view, Tobold effectively equated them to 12 years olds beating up a kid for lunch money on the playground, and that simply isn't a good analogy for what gatecamping 0.0 is. *That's* why there has been so much explanation in terms of justification.

"Bullying" has a negative smack and Tobold uses it to make the post a little bit more contentios, to spark a debate.

I think it is borderline acceptable. And even if it weren't: It is his blog.

Of course, a gate camper in EVE is no more a bully than a defender in soccer is, when some striker of the opposing team comes alone. That also applies when there are 4 defenders but only one striker.I want to see the reaction of the fans if the defenders only forced 1:1, because "to outnumber the single striker were unfair ":)

I'm surprised you would accuse EVE online of having asymmetrical PvP. Where exactly do you find this pleasant fantasyland of completely balanced PvP?

I'm not an expert, but I have played a few MMOs, I'm not even an avid PvPer, but I dabble from time to time.

In WoW, if a person were so inclined to whine, what excuse can they make up? "Oh, they outgeared us." "Guild group, GG." "They had 2 Gladiators on the team." "omg, they're running RRD no-skill comp.""Omg one of our guys is afk, it's 8 vs 10, unfair."

Fair PvP is some mythical fable people dredge up to wax poetic about what they dream two heroic beings dueling for honour to be.

Going way back to my roots, Ultima Online had a thriving dueling atmosphere, everyone could be identical 7xGMs with 100-25-100 stats, using GM crafted weapons and armor. Those were some interesting duels, but even then you would still have participants on the new fangled cable modems competing against people on 14.4k baud dial up, and they'd complain up a storm.

Be it Dark Age of Camelot, ShadowBane, FFXI (Limited), or Warhammer Online, this dream of "fair and balanced PvP" is not achievable.

I imagine a sports analogy would suit what you're looking for in fairness and fun, but even that falls a little short. I follow the NHL, the teams are salary capped in order to provide a semblance fairness in what the teams can field, this prevents one team from buying a whole bunch of stars and stomp all over the less wealthy teams. Even this has imbalances, sometimes star players aren't playing up to their worth, or you have underpaid players performing over their worth. Of even more consequence, not all teams spend right up to the salary cap, rather they stay just above the salary floor. So there's still a monetary disparity. The system was designed to be fair, and even that turned out not-so-great.

Honestly I'm not that different a player. I've played WoW a long while, and recently have dabbled into EVE. It's not all that fun, but neither was WoW or I wouldn't have left. I do most of my flying in high-sec, with the occasional low-sec stop for courier missions. I just imagine null-sec to be the equivalent of end-game. No level 5 heads into Molten Core/Naxxaramas/Blackwing Lair/Ulduar/Icecrown Citadel, and I don't envision myself doing so until I can afford/train a blockade runner or perhaps a covert ops ship. Much like WoW, if I were to join a null-sec corp, you get "power-leveled" into the area a lot quicker.

It seems to me you're seeking an impossibility of a fair and balanced PvP system, while unjustly casting EVE online in a bad light while glossing over the faults of other games in the genre. But that's just my opinion.

I admit I don't find a lot of aspects EVE enjoyable after playing such a polished game as WoW. But there are some very different concepts done in EVE that I would love to see in WoW. It doesn't make it a worse game, just different.

@Tobold: you say 'I NEVER said "nobody likes unfair fights" or "you shouldn't like unfair fights".'

but you also said, the original blog entry:

"My point was that asymmetric PvP, whatever you want to call it (ganking, bullying, ...) is bad, because it is neither satisfying to the winner nor to the loser."

I enjoy asymmetric PvP, I have enjoyed being the loser, and found it a satisfying experience. Am I wrong, am I not having fun? Obviously that's not the meaning you intended. ;)

Later in the original post:

"But for now it suffices to say that I think it isn't very good game design, based on the assumption that good game design produces a maximum amount of fun for a maximum number of players."

When the players concerned have collectively agreed that unfair fights are enjoyable (by subscribing and logging in to the game), then your belief cannot be a mandatory result of that particular assertion. ;)

A lot of people are having fun in a big corporation, that is mining and defending a large territory. It's not really right to say it's bad, it's just different.

I mean compare it to a raid: You stand in a corner and kill some trash. Or you run in circles and bash some healthbars with magic heals. Or your primary job is to shout curses and get hit to the face. None of these are fun activities, but bringing it all together makes a team win; and that's how the gatecampers are making their fun.

(not to mention friendly chatter with any blues in the area)

Think of it in this way: the gatecampers aren't there to gank, they're there to prevent their enemies from ganking their industrials, miners and ratters. Without that camp, their opposing corps would just send in some covert bombers or ganksquads to destroy the expensive exhumers and industrial ships that are maintaining their large empire, mostly in peace.

No, but my beliefs can be my beliefs. And it would be EXTREMELY tedious for me to have to put a "in my personal opinion" in front of EACH of my sentences. If I that "that is bad game design", you must add a "in my personal opinion" to the end of the phrase yourself. Because this is a blog, and everything I say is in my personal opinion.

Note also that the same EVE players who blast me for expressing my beliefs, make much worse general statements about WoW, which are far more wrong if you considered them as statements of absolute truths.

In most PVP games (say, FPSes or RTSes), you win or lose based on what happens during a conflict. In MMO PVP games, you win or lose before the conflict even starts.

This is a simplification, of course. It's probably more of a ratio of Before:During influences. In FPSes it's probably 1:12 and for PVP MMOs it's more like 5:1. The point is in a PVP MMO, the victor is pretty much decided before you set foot in a PVP enabled zone.

And I do hope you realize the inherent irony of insisting that EVE is a sandbox game in which everybody can do what he wants, and in the same breath telling me that I'm playing it wrong.

Yes you have lots of freedom to act. So does everyone around you. And you did behave the way you wanted to--just not successfully. And you can do what you wanted to do successfully, but you have to integrate yourself into the structures that let you do that.

You're doing wrong if you want to be successful. EVE would be more second life if you just wanted to do "it" without regard to those around you.

@Tobold: '"your belief cannot be a mandatory result" No, but my beliefs can be my beliefs.'

Something being a "personal opinion" or "belief" doesn't make it impossible for those opinions/beliefs to be shown to be incorrect or inaccurate.

For example this belief on unfair fights:

"I think it isn't very good game design, based on the assumption that good game design produces a maximum amount of fun for a maximum number of players."

is obviously not globally true in all cases. EVE's playerbase is a relevant example.

A person's preferences, certainly can't be challenged, assuming they are reported honestly - though of course the reasons for them can be discussed, which might result in those preferences being re-evaluated and changing.

"Because this is a blog, and everything I say is in my personal opinion."

You don't understand. I was totally successful. I set out to prove that I would be ganked if I entered nulsec, and that is exactly what happened. Full success, and insurance money to boot.

The EVE fanbois are just using the strawman argument pretending that I stumbled into nulsec unaware. That is totally not true, which should be blindingly obvious from both of my posts about it. I didn't do it wrong, I set out to prove that EVE is a ganking game, and I did it.

That "EVE is a ganking game" isn't very good publicity for it, and EVE fanbois object to me writing about it, is a different story. But this blog is *my* nulsec territory, where you can't bully me, while I have all the weapons to shoot you down at will if I wanted.

"I think it isn't very good game design, based on the assumption that good game design produces a maximum amount of fun for a maximum number of players." is obviously not globally true in all cases. EVE's playerbase is a relevant example.

But I never said it was globally true!

Something being a "personal opinion" or "belief" doesn't make it impossible for those opinions/beliefs to be shown to be incorrect or inaccurate.

Well, go ahead, show that my statement about what makes good game design is incorrect or inaccurate for EVERYBODY. I think it easy to find some people that would agree with me that maximum fun for the maximum number of players is an element of good game design, thus for myself and the people that agree with me that statement is totally correct.

I'd even bet that if you put that statement to a vote on a general gaming site, you'd get more votes agreeing than disagreeing.

Of course for every possible statement, up to and including "the earth is round", you will find somebody who disagrees. That doesn't make that statement invalid.

Of course podkilling occurs in 0.0. Podkilling is an annoyance and if you want people out of your system, annoying them is one very effective way to do so.

If your point was to show "Look, I can get podded in nullsec!" Then you succeeded admirably. If your point was to investigate WHY you'd get podded, you failed miserably.

You died because you mistook a strategic game for the tactical one you left. Once you formed the intention of travelling to nullsec with no formulation of survival strategies, the ship AND pod you assigned to the mission were as good as destroyed.

Eve is a strategic level game. Until you understand this, it is going to frustrate you no end. You will not understand it, though you will think you do, and you will be upset when you end up feeling lost, alone, hurt and confused.

The ONLY form of fun is overcoming challenge, even if it's the light challenge of grinding Timbermaw rep. The difference between WoW and Eve is that WoW packages up your challenges in nice, neat little morsels and Eve does not. WoW, by packaging the challenges into morsels limits the numbers and kinds of available challenges. Eve does not.

There are people who are SUCCESSFULLY living the life of a pirate in Eve! That is simply amazing. There are no pirates in WoW. There are analogs of Captain Jack Sparrow, funny, amoral and entertaining. There are people who can be media moguls, who actually gain isk by running radio stations within Eve's browser. There are no DJs in WoW, it is not a class you can level up. There are people who run and fight for mercenary corporations in Eve. They fight with honor for the highest bidder, and they do it well. There are no mercenaries in WoW, the game mechanics don't allow it because all challenges are wrapped up like delicious Hershey's Kisses. Eve gives you the ingredients to make whatever you want.

- Look me up ingame, my 'toon's name is Algazel.

P.S. You can also play Eve as a tactical level game, but you need a 'ahem' strategy to get there.

You don't understand. I was totally successful. I set out to prove that I would be ganked if I entered nulsec, and that is exactly what happened. Full success, and insurance money to boot.

The EVE fanbois are just using the strawman argument pretending that I stumbled into nulsec unaware. That is totally not true, which should be blindingly obvious from both of my posts about it. I didn't do it wrong, I set out to prove that EVE is a ganking game, and I did it.

Nonono ... all that happened was that you have been killed by an overwhelming force after entering 0.0. That is all you proved. No more, no less. Ganking includes more than being killed.

I actually do not understand, why you get more and more stubborn the longer this discussion continues. There have been some very carefully worded comments here and it seems like you just don't even consider them. IOnstead you call them "EVE fanboys".

The "EVE fanboys" (a lot of them don't even play EVE since they don't like some parts of that game) actually tried with many words to give you another perspective, but apparently refining your opinion is something you didn't even consider from the beginning.

If all you want is to post an opinion then why to you encourage discussion in your blog in the first place?

If all you want is to post an opinion then why to you encourage discussion in your blog in the first place?

Just because I allow discussion doesn't mean I'm changing my opinion in the face of bullying and flawed arguments. And I have to be stubborn if I have to repeat the fact that I didn't stumble into nulsec by accident a dozen times and still get people using that as an argument against me.

You posting a thousand comments on my blog will not change my opinion that being ganked is not fun, and that games which require things like gatecamping aren't interesting for me. Your insistence only makes YOU look more and more like a bully.

"Basically we all agree that EVE is an extremely harsh and unfriendly game, where people not in the know are likely to suffer bad losses, and that this isn't the game for me"

I most definately disagree with this. You went out of your way JUST to get yourself killed intentionally.

How does this imply that people in the know are going to suffer bad losses?

What it does imply is that people IN the know (such as you) who go OUT of their way to do so will suffer losses.

This is one of the most socially active and friendly games I've ever played. Players are more than helpful to aid you with any questions you may have.

You say its not a game for you...because you CAN be killed? But only if you go out of your way to make that happen?

IF you had even TRIED any other parts of the game, you would see EvE has a lot more to offer than PvP. And if you DONT want to PvP and actively avoid it, it is extremely difficult to get yourself killed.

What I don't understand is how you say the reason you dislike EvE is the bullying (I fail to understand how there can be bullying in war myself), yet the ONLY instance where you experienced it was an artificial situation you manufactured.

@Tobold: "'I think it isn't very good game design, based on the assumption that good game design produces a maximum amount of fun for a maximum number of players." is obviously not globally true in all cases. EVE's playerbase is a relevant example.'"But I never said it was globally true!"

Then you perhaps you should have qualified the statement. Perhaps with "...for ." What particular grouping did you intend it to apply to? To you only? To "general mainstream MMO players", whoever those fine abstracted gentleman and ladies may be?

"Well, go ahead, show that my statement about what makes good game design is incorrect or inaccurate for EVERYBODY."

Why would I do that? I'm not making that assertion, it would be foolish for me to attempt such a feat.

"I think it easy to find some people that would agree with me that maximum fun for the maximum number of players is an element of good game design, thus for myself and the people that agree with me that statement is totally correct."

You just said For A=B, A=B. That's pretty obvious.

But, anyway, that wasn't your original statement, that was your key assumption. It's your "I think [unfair fights] isn't very good game design based on" that assumption that can be demonstrated to be false for some populations of players.

"I'd even bet that if you put that statement to a vote on a general gaming site, you'd get more votes agreeing than disagreeing."

Happily there's no need to appeal to vox populi.

'Of course for every possible statement, up to and including "the earth is round", you will find somebody who disagrees. That doesn't make that statement invalid.'

In this case - a substantial and relevant user population whose preferences appear to contradict the deduction you draw from a key assumption - it pretty much does.

By the way, in your previous "dog-barking" rhetorical structure the volume of disagreeing posts were demonstrating the lone-voice truth of your preferences. Is the earth round now, or flat? I'm dizzy and can't tell... :)

"You don't understand. I was totally successful. I set out to prove that I would be ganked if I entered nulsec, and that is exactly what happened. Full success, and insurance money to boot."

What you proved was that when you Leroy in a 0.0 border system with no planning or understanding, you will get killed. I'm pretty sure everyone already knew that.

If I wrote a blog entry about how I ran into Ogrimmar with my lvl 2 human mage, got slaughtered then called the people in Ogrimmar 'bullies' or any other negative term I would likely have a similar response from the WoW players.

Perhaps a more valuable experiment would have been to fly out there with a properly fit ship(not expensive, just targeted) for the task and maybe some intel on the campers, perhaps a scout and then prove that it is possible.

For the record up until this last post I think that the discussion has been rather civil. This was even mentioned by some of people who are not supporters of EvE. Even in this post most of the comments seem to be focused on the idea of helping you find the enjoyment you are looking for. To reduce all of us to "EVE fanbois" seems unnecessary and detrimental to the conversation.

And how many times do people have to explain that you werent "ganked"?

These werent two griefers running around in WoW killing lowbies. They werent even looking for anyone at all.

You came to them, to a place you KNEW would get you killed. How is this ganking?

Its invasion, and they repelled the invasion.

Tobold, don't you think the fact you did CHOOSE to go to null-sec is an argument against you?

You use this as an example of EvE's gameplay, but this WASN"T normal gameplay.

There is absolutely no gameplay reason or advantage for anyone to do what you did.

How can you possibly represent EvE's gameplay with this one completely fake situation?

You say its a game of bullying and harshness. However, prior to this suicide thing you did your experience was utterly bully-free.

By ignoring the many facets of EvE to experience just one (missions), then making a judgement based entirely on one artificial situation, you have completely misrepresented and falsified EvE's gameplay.

How can you possibly say that players "will suffer bad losses"? This is just so wrong.

You could play as a trader, miner, or manufacturer and NEVER leave high-sec (or even the station).

Basically, the only truth is that if you willingly go to null-sec intentionally looking to die, you will. And if you choose to avoid null-sec, you won't (mostly).

So, your problem isnt "ganking", its that you feel that games should let you run around enemy territory without being shot at. (the only time you were "bullied")

Lastly, you still have never even acknowledged gameplay in EvE exists beyond missions/pvp. As someone who dislikes pvp and seems interested in the economic side, this is a bizarre choice.

"You posting a thousand comments on my blog will not change my opinion that being ganked is not fun, and that games which require things like gatecamping aren't interesting for me"

Well at least you put a "for me" in that time, and you are probably on pretty safe ground leavign it out on the "being ganked is not fun" part.

On your question to my comment above ("Tobold, you are still doing it. Telling other people that what they are doing is not "fun" for them.

I don't see your point. Aren't *you* just telling *me* that my definition of fun is wrong and yours is right? Same thing.)

No, I'm not. Read more carefully. I'm making no attempt to define what is or is not fun. I am saying that it's not possible to define. It's you who is making declarative statements about what is or is not fun, what is or is not satisfying.

I'm in no way attempting to describe or delineate what is fun FOR YOU. You're doing that. I am suggesting that you have insufficient evidence to make the sweeping statements you have been making about what "must" not be fun, or satisfying for others, and also that you are wilfully ignoring the clear evidence both in EVE, in many other games and in this very thread that people who are not you do indeed get satisfaction from fights they are certain to win, and do find unfair PvP fun.

The odd thing here is that in terms of play, I actually agree with your emotional reaction. I don't enjoy being ganked and I don't enjoy ganking others (although I would say that whereas ten years ago I found ganking others mortifying and unacceptable, nowadays I find it relatively neutral and will do it in appropriate circumstances without a qualm).

My issue isn't with you finding the "bullying" in EVE distasteful or even unacceptable, either of which is a perfectly supportable moral position. It's with your apparent refusal to believe that anyone else might actually being enjoying it.

You really need to leave your preconceptions behind. The columns about nulsec come across rather like a tourist in a Hawaiian shirt and shorts completely misunderstanding what they're seeing because they can't let go of their cultural lens.

Eve is not a game about battles, it's a game about wars. Saying you shouldn't fly something you can't afford to lose isn't just about the harshness of the world, it's also about the timeline of the world. You don't put your eggs into one battle or one ship because it's not a game about one ship. It's a game about your long term progress.

Your battle took perhaps 30 seconds? But the Great Eve War between the NC and SC has gone on now, hot and cold, for almost four years. Eve wars involve tens of thousands of players, hundreds of corporations, dozens of alliances. They involve not just individual battles large and small, but also a huge industrial and logistic infrastructure and intricate political machinations involving intelligence, propaganda, and diplomacy.

That's what Eve PVP is about.

If that huge story of how things interact isn't appealing to someone, then so be it. But to ignore that this kind of complexity is present in Eve and that it just might have been a factor in why your ship was shot up really doesn't come across as a sincere analysis. It's like saying combat in Diplomacy isn't very interesting or realistic. Correct, but completely missing the point.

This is what I don't understand, why are people trying to convince another carebear to play? Experiment or not, does eve really NEED another emo raging blogger crying about what's "fair" or not in a game designed to have as few rules as possible?

"The EVE fanbois are just using the strawman argument pretending that I stumbled into nulsec unaware. That is totally not true, which should be blindingly obvious from both of my posts about it. I didn't do it wrong, I set out to prove that EVE is a ganking game, and I did it."

You were fully aware that entering nul-sec was a dangerous occupation and you would be attacked by other players for doing it, so why did you?

You said why yourself in the above qoute: "I set out to prove that EVE is a ganking game, and I did it."

You performed an experiment with a pre-existing bias and published only the results that agreed with you. You didn't even bother to compare other activities in the game and see how prevalent 'ganking' is in them, and used your biased, single experience of trying to enter nul-sec as evidence that "EVE is a ganking game."

I could make the same assertion about WoW, if I had only ever played on an open PvP server and wandered quite deliberately into the opposing faction's territory.

And before you go on about "it being only my opinion.", the thing about opinions is that they don't need proof. I think Ice Cream is great, I don't need to prove it to anyone. Someone else might think that gay hobbit porn is the bee's knees, I'm well within my rights to disagree with them, but they will never be able to prove their opinion to me and neither are they obliged to.

The moment you set out to prove something you step away from the realm of opinion and into the world of fact (except in some convoluted mathematical cases). Trying to prove something implies that the thing you are trying to prove is a verifiable, universal truth. The same no matter the circumstances.Your effort to prove that EVE is a ganking game has failed. You have only succeeded in proving your own preconceptions and the fact that in a very limited set of circumstances EVE is indeed a ganking game.

As such I feel we have reason to doubt the veracity of your claim to have been ganked. If you only did it in an effort to prove your own preconceptions, why bother with the 'experiment' in the first place? You could just as easily (moreso in fact) simply write a post stating that you'd been ganked on a nul-sec gate and claim your pre-determined view proven.

(As such I would ask that you post your losses (ship and pod) to battleclinic and link us to them. just to prove that you did in fact do what you claim to have done.) continued...

First time I entered 0.0 it was in the Great Wildlands. It was in a Rifter and I lasted all of 1.5 min. Not bad considering I didn't know my rear end from a hole in the ground. I learned a lesson that day. I came back some time later. Bigger camp, same ship. Escaped and was followed. Jumped to planets and boom he was right on top of me. Web, scram, Overheat ACs and he was down before his buddies could help. I learned how the game (and people within it) operates.

Ganked is neither fun nor is it "not fun". It just is.

I adapted and moved on. I lost a ship. Everyone loses those. I gained experience. Not everyone gains that from said action.No whining, complaining or gnashing of teeth will change what happened. It happens in EVE and that is what you sign up for when you subscribe. I was a noob character and can link you videos of noob characters hitting higher SP characters successfully.

SP is good, especially if you want to fly bigger ships, but this isn't about buying bigger ships. It's about flying what you can fly the best way you can given your experience (and weapons help too:P)

I have read the comments and your responses and the overwhelming conclusion is that you came into the game with a set of preconceived notions of what EVE is. You endured and for that I commend you. You do express yourself in a rather odd way that would make the casual reader think that you are stating that something is "fun" or "not fun" (insert fair,bad,good, etc... where needed)

I can see by your responses that this isn't the case and that you mean to say that in "Your Opinion" XXX doesn't seem fair,good,fun,etc...

People do get their panties in a bunch about this don't they?

Enjoy the game. If you don't like it then play something else. Good game, good game design, good XXX really is for the beholder to determine and if this blog post and resulting comments has taught us anything is that EVE players are passionate about their game. It's not for everyone and most of us like it that way.

Personally, I don't want to be able to buy a painted pony for $25 if it doesn't have autocannons that can blast the other ponies around me out of the sky. But that's just me. :-)

continued...You have stated that EVE is a ganking game, and offer your experience as proof. I say your experience is too limited, and your dataset biased. This does not constitue proof of anything apart from your own narrow-mindedness.

You have repeatedly turned down offers of assistance in finding out more about the incredibly deep and varied gameplay in EVE. You have (possibly unintentionally) labeled all eve players as gankers and bullys when the majority of us have been nothing but polite to you in these and other comments.You are portraying a game we have a deep affection for in a bad light due to your limited viewpoint and seem to resent any attempt to open your mind.

We are only trying to help you and explain EVE to you, but as others have said before me, you have no interest in actually finding anything out about the game if it doesn't reinforce your existing bias.

We defend our game passionately (sometimes too passionately, admittedly) because we know how much weight your opinion carries with the players of MMOs (not just WoW) and the influence you have over the perception others have of 'our' game is considerable. You may not want to admit it or acknowledge it but you are an MMO blogging celebrity, and your opinion is valued by many. This is why we argue in defense of EVE. You are presenting a one-sided view of a many-sided game, and you ignore any offers to show you its other sides.

This disappoints me, I tried, I really did. As did many others. But I see now that my efforts were in vain. I was one who exhorted you to try EVE before spouting off about it. Now I sincerely wish you hadn't bothered. You'll never be able to appreciate its finer nuances nor the depth and scale of its gameplay simply because you're not willing to come to it with a mind free of all the preconceptions that WoW has branded into your mind. Its a shame, it really is.

You set out to prove a game is a ganking game by entering a situation where you KNOW you will be killed by other players.

In this situation, can I not simply claim WoW is a ganking game, by going naked into a battleground? I KNOW I'm going to die by going in there - and yet, the fact of what we know is players don't have to attack me. Or I could run around in enemy territory as soon as I create a level one on a pvp server, sure as hell some 80 will come along, or higher level character - and click one button and be done with it.

This is the same logic you are applying to EVE, I also don't understand that - despite your dislike of one aspect of the game, you don't seem to be all that interested in exploring the other options available to you - whilst clinging to the arguement above, which I have just demonstrated is not an extremely well thought out idea.

If you don't like EVE, just say so and leave it at that. It is however your blog. If you wish to cause controversy of some variety which you know will provoke a response, that is also your own choice and go ahead - I just want you to at least listen to some of the other options being presented to you by people who arnt trying to set you on fire metaphorically.

Tobold: I don't think anyone with any sense would deny you the right to your own opinion of the game, you are entitled to like or dislike anything as you see fit. The reason your posts on this subject get hackles up is because you have labeled people you don't know as bullys. That word is probably a poor choice of terminology. You have also asserted that what you don't like is the result of flawed game design.

The gate campers did not come looking for you, rather you went looking for them and congratulations you found them in their space. I am not even sure that ganking is a good choice of terms even though it is technically correct.Going into their space and getting killed and saying you don't like it is comparable in wow to taking your level 15 priest into stranglethorn vale and complaining that the tigers are bullys because they kill you and the game is flawed. They are simply operating the way the game intended. If you play on a pvp realm and the nasty paladin ganks you and corpse camps you for an hour, then you could argue that he is a bully because he enjoys repeatedly ganking you and actively takes pleasure in your suffering. I would say that taking your little ship into their gate does not really constitute pvp because you know in advance they will blast you. If you and 20 of your friends take some kickass ships through that gate then there is real pvp.

Even with my very limited experience in EVE so far I would not try to make the argument you are making with regard to game design and unfair fights. If I take a newb ship into null sec I expect to get killed and I know that is perfectly normal. It is not flawed game design that got me killed, it was my own decision to go there whether for adventure or just for giggles as they wonder whysome idiot keeps showing up in a newb ship.

I read it. As well your others articles about EVE. I played WoW before, quite a lot. I did enjoyed PvE as well as PvP in WoW. Left it for EVE though, had no mood to run every week up the same hill and wait on a new content to actually be able to pursue something.

As ex-WoW PvPer, you seem to be exactly the type of person that we call "scrub". The one who would whine about it being unfair to be corpse camped on spawning cemetery without deeper insight into battleground tactics.

I do not understand at all, what you tried to accomplished with your comments on EVE. How much relevant would be a level 30 warrior commenting on an end-game tanking? So much quality info you provided to us, blogosphere readers...

Oh dear God, I’m not gonna read all these comments, but from glancing over them I think a lot of you are missing the point a little. Many of you are arguing that he is trying to tell you what’s right and wrong for everyone. This is his blog; he has stated that it was originally meant as something of a journal for him, so of course his personal opinion is going to show. The problem with getting so much attention like he has is that people are now trying to force objectivity into his work, as if he owes them to act like a robot.

I’m assuming you’re all relatively smart people, so you guys KNOW that when he says something “isn’t fun” it’s his opinion. He shouldn’t have to change the way he writes to satisfy you or your confidence in EvE. If Tobold added “personally” or “for me” every time he said something wasn’t fun it’d be superficial and pointless, and everyone arguing that he should act robotically unbiased for them needs to realize that they sound like a distraught fanboy. You know that you’re able to think for yourself, Tobold knows you’re able to think for yourself, so why the hell are so many people acting like children? I started following this blog for its maturity, but these comments are sounding like the same ol’ internet kids with better grammar.

As for Tobold’s point that he went to “prove Eve was a ganking game”, I believe he did. Yes, he certainly had a bias, but the people who ganked him weren’t in on it. The philosophy of EvE PvP does promote ganking or bullying. Even if you call it “defending” their territory, it’s still ganking, and his point is that this is a flawed system in itself. All of you are complaining about how he got there and his obvious bias going into it, but Tobold himself has nothing to do with this because the focus of the topic is on those people who ganked him. They would have done so to anyone, because that’s how the game is. A bully could say he’s “defending” the sandbox, but it’s still bullying and still ganking when the other person never had a chance. Stop hiding behind New Eden’s lore and your own fanboyism.

"In this situation, can I not simply claim WoW is a ganking game, by going naked into a battleground? I KNOW I'm going to die by going in there - and yet, the fact of what we know is players don't have to attack me. Or I could run around in enemy territory as soon as I create a level one on a pvp server, sure as hell some 80 will come along, or higher level character - and click one button and be done with it."

It's not the same at all. WoW does not encourage people to camp the entrance to high level zones for the purpose of ganking lowbies who run in. That is a major distinction. The examples you're using rely on throwing yourself at the enemy, whereas Tobold just moved into another zone and didn't even have a chance to run. If he tracked down another ship and it killed him them sure your example would be applicable.

I'm a major PvPer, I love unpredictable world PvP, although I'll never gank someone for no reason. Even though Tobold is certainly a little too carebear to me, I am able to see his point.

Tell you what Tobold, I am currently working on Loremaster of Kalimdor and am fairly close to Mulgor at the moment. I am going to run into Thunderbluff and if only the guards attack me then thats fine, but if any players help the guards thus over powering and out numbering me then I will start claiming WoW is a ganking game full of bullies.

In fact I am going to be even more fair and run in about 3 or 4 times (no more than that because this is a waste to begin with). I'm quite sure we will find that each and every subsequent time I run into the city I will meet the same results, thus bullying is happening all the time here.

So now you're saying that I only got ganked because I purposely set out to do so, and any new player unknowingly stepping through that same gate wouldn't suffer the same fate? Obviously anyone passing that gate in force less than the gatecampers would have been ganked as well.

I still think that my original description was rather accurate: Nulsec is the nicer part of the playground, and anyone not accompanied by lots of strong friends is going to get beaten up and kicked out. Feel free to call that "justified war", I don't.

Also, I thought you stopped paying attention to Syncaine...

If you look carefully you will find under my posts an automated "Links" section, which shows other people's blogs linking to the post in question. I know I scored when another post of Syncaine turns up there.

I never said that. Obviously ganking is fun for the person doing it, otherwise he probably wouldn't do it. I'm just expressing an opinion that it is a sort of fun I find distasteful, just like I would find it distasteful if somebody was having fun being cruel to animals.

We defend our game passionately (sometimes too passionately, admittedly) because we know how much weight your opinion carries with the players of MMOs (not just WoW) and the influence you have over the perception others have of 'our' game is considerable. You may not want to admit it or acknowledge it but you are an MMO blogging celebrity, and your opinion is valued by many. This is why we argue in defense of EVE.

I would say you all are making a terrible job out of it. Any new player reading your comments will be significantly more disgusted by your own description of EVE than by mine. There are a hundred comments here all agreeing with me that EVE is an extremely harsh game, where stepping through the wrong gate will get you killed. Saying that players stepping through that gate *must* be killed for a number of strategic reasons only makes it sound even more cruel. I don't believe that is something you can easily sell on a mass market.

By the way, why do people assume I would in any way be bothered if they said bad things about WoW? I'm not. Actually a good part of my blog consists of posts with me saying bad things about WoW. There was one today complaining about gearscore epeen.

And funnily enough I never get hundreds of WoW players telling me I shouldn't say not-so-nice things about World of Warcraft. Which is even more remarkable given the respective size of the user-base. I swear when I say something bad about Darkfall, I have every single Darkfall player complaining here, all 17 of them.

Shouting someone down with paragraph after paragraph telling them that their thoughts and feelings are WRONG is not "HELPING" them understand the game.

So Tobold's bartle type is explorer, the game doesn't cater to a solo playstyle, and all your justification and reasoning and grand warfare strategies won't change the fact that you can't peacefully explore without players just standing around waiting to kill you.

"By the way, why do people assume I would in any way be bothered if they said bad things about WoW? I'm not. Actually a good part of my blog consists of posts with me saying bad things about WoW. There was one today complaining about gearscore epeen."

Quick question, do you mean in this post or do you mean in general? I did a ctrl-f with the key 'wow' and searched through the 67 references on this page but the use of wow ranged from neutral, to condescending, to positive. It didn't seem though that any of the posts were trying to 'bother' you by saying bad things about wow, although some (like myself) did try to use it as an educational tool (and thats mostly because the only mmo I play atm is WoW, I'm sure I could have used Allods instead).

That leads me to believe you're not talking about this page but about some of your other pages, in which case I'll admit I did not fact check them. However, in the case you are talking about this page then it is likely a case of misinterpretation (as some of the wow-use in replies were poorly worded which would completely understandably lead to confusing you or anyone).

"So now you're saying that I only got ganked because I purposely set out to do so, and any new player unknowingly stepping through that same gate wouldn't suffer the same fate? "

The first half of the sentence is correct, the second is not.

What I am saying is that yes any other newb or for that matter any experienced EvE player would absolutely be ganked in the same way as you were should they attempt it in the same manner. However any newb or experienced player who put even a single ounce of effort into preparation would have a decent chance of getting through the gate camp or at least surviving long enough to get back to the gate and jump back through to the system they came from.

It has become obvious that you have no interest in learning anything in EvE. You seem to approach any aspect of the game expecting it to be a certain way and when it's not you say its broken rather than adjusting your methods to become more successful.

There have been a ton of very well thought out responses to these articles, mostly suggesting methods to adjust your play to have more fun and so far you seem to have ignored every single suggestion made beyond simply joining a player corp(I could be wrong here, maybe you just haven't mentioned those examples).

As for ripping on WoW, I think what people have been saying, myself included, is that if you called WoW players 'bullies' en mass they might take that as an insult just as we EvE players have especially if you called them that as a result of an action you took which made absolutely no sense.

@Tobold: "Any new player reading your comments will be significantly more disgusted by your own description of EVE than by mine."

Disgusted? Sorry, what? It's not like we're abusing animals. Or hobbits, for that matter.

How did we get to "disgusting?"

"I don't believe that is something you can easily sell on a mass market."

Sorry, the top selling computer games of the year are team FPSes based around what most FPSs are based around: killing, rending, running over, and generally dismembering accurately rendered soldier-characters in pseudoealistic detail sufficiently quickly to control territory. They sell by the squintillions.

And you describe a immortal cybernetic post-human being despatched to his home station by the pod express after a disposable 747-sized internetspaceship-submarine is shot down in nullsec as "disgusting?"

I too, am downloading the EVE client right now. Not because I learned something new about EVE. I still dislike the skills system and the RMT. I still consider mining boring and the GUI abysmal.

I will give EVE another try, because during the last few days we could see two kinds of commenters here.

The first kind tried to argue, give reasons, tried to listen and then write a comprehensive answer.The other kind usually posted something like: "You cannot argue with me; everybody has the right to his own opinion. Full Stop."

Tobold himself somehow felt attacked and took cover behind a 10m thick wall of stone. He unconsciously blocked every comment and every argument that appeared to be 'against him'. He even went so far to assert that he ventured into 0.0 just to be killed. So that he could then argue that EVE is about ganking and bullying. ...You get several warnings before you reach 0.0. Just like in WoW, once you are there (alone in the capital of the other faction), you get killed fast. If it is about exploration: Safe space in EVE is vast! And even in WoW if you go out adventuring – even on a PvE server – you will get killed once you are in Wintergrasp!I don't get how somebody, who is able to write so elegantly, can actually try to take cover behind such a laughable argument.

The current plan is to find some good corp in 0.0 that accepts relative newbies. The most important thing to me is to actually be useful as soon as possible with the new char. Main interests are economics and PvP. I am online 18-22 CET and most weekends.

At this point you guys aren't even debating about EVE anymore. You're debating about semantics and over the definition of what an opinion is. =p

Oh and for the record an opinion cannot be proven wrong.

Me saying "In my opinion 2+4=3" is actually not an opinion at all, but a disprovable statement that I incorrectly slapped "in my opinion" in front of. Just putting the phrase in front of a sentence doesn't make that sentence an opinion.

Oh and by the way it's actually really bad grammar to use terms like "I believe" or "in my opinion". These terms are deadwood and any good English teacher would tell you to never use them, because obviously anything coming out of your mouth, or printed by you is your opinion!

I kind of have to agree with the point that you seem to have come in with your mind made up. If you will give me the chance, I would like to help change your mind. I haven't been playing since the dawn of EVE, I'm not in a giant alliance, but I can functionally accomplish the things I want to due to experience (much at the cost of some hard knocks).

You took the most obvious route into what you knew to be dangerous territory in a ship you knew was no match for any fight you found. You could have likely made it by sneaking through a less direct route in the very same ship. You had a chance to win, just not by charging head on and hoping for the best.

I'm trying not to sound rude or condescending, so I apologize if I came off as either. I really would like to talk to you and help you enjoy your time in EVE and accomplish some of your goals, if nothing else to enjoy the game a bit more myself. :-p

Some games are just that: games. You play them to have a little fun and release steam. Single player games usually offer this. Right now, I'm having a blast playing GTA IV, single player. If I die in a mission, it's alright. Why? Because it's just a game.

Once you mix other people into it, it's competition, whether the developers intended it or not. With MMOs, competition with other people is inherent in the game design. Otherwise, you'd just play it single player and advance if and when you feel like it.

I used to play WoW, and have been the much-touted "MMO Tourist" over the years. Before that I played RTS and FPS for competition. And I can tell you now, "competition" in MMOs is a joke.

You're right, Tobold. A fair fight in a MMO is just about impossible. Whether it's arbitrary game levels or skills, time spent in the game gives a person "fake" skills that allow them to dominate other players who don't have as much time invested.

Compare this to a RTS of FPS, where relatively speaking you can install the game, and if you're quick and intelligent, can come out of the gates swinging. While game skill/experience isn't as advanced as someone who has been playing for a year, at the same time in a RTS/FPS players aren't usually given "rewards" that they can use as an advantage just because they've spent more time playing.

Ultimately, my point is that PvP in any MMO is inherently flawed. Time spent is going to equal some sort of arbitrary skill for the avatar with the time. An avatar without such time spent will be at some sort of disadvantage...again, leaving out pure, raw "skill" from the equation.

Fair fights in an MMO? They can only really happen if both participants decide to have a fair fight in advance. Otherwise, the powerful will use their power over less-powerful players whenever they can; the advantage they gained is specifically DESIGNED to allow them power over a newer player. Otherwise, why not just give that power to anyone who plays, right?

MMOs allow institutionalized bullying? Of course they do; they hand out arbitrary skill and advantages to the people who have paid more money (and time) for them than a new player.

“You took the most obvious route into what you knew to be dangerous territory in a ship you knew was no match for any fight you found.”

But see, I don’t think that’s his point. He’s talking about the players that were camping the gate. Most people are attacking his actions and prejudice, but that’s completely independent of the PvP that EvE supports. Regardless of whether he tried to go around or ran right into them, the point is that they were there for the purpose of ganking or bullying. We know this, but if he said it without an example the responses would be full of “you didn’t even try!” so he made a token attempt to appease some people and now everyone can’t get over it.

So yes he was biased, yes it does seem like he expected it to turn out this way, and yes I too wish he would try to like unpredictable PvP a little better. But like he’s mentioned, people are using the straw man fallacy to attack his argument.

I'm a current eve player im and I'm in a uni Corp that teaches null sec pvp an survival and don't fly big scary ships in pvp and I only have 6mil skill points.

Wat happened to you tobold is wat happens to most people when they first enter null sec, he'll it happened to me and most of the people in my Corp. But a few more experienced players took it upon themselves to form this Corp and alliance to teach use how to survive.

Wat happened to you is avoidable and is avoided very easly, yu just need to know how. And I'm not talkin skills to train, I'm talking tactics.

Now on to my next point. As I said I don't fly fancy ships. I mostly fly the rifter frigate, most of the people I fly with don't fly fancy ships either and we have won those battles that you are dubbing unfair, I'm talkig about kill things like drake battlecruisers with a small gang of t1 frigates and or cruisers, killing a vagabond heavy assualt ship, killing a pirate faction dramiel. In otherwords those big scary ships, was the fight unfair, he'll yes, was the fight in our favor, he'll no, but we won and we kill ships worth hundreds of millions in t1 frigates and cruisers.

We didn't blob them either, I could count the number of ships in our gang on one hand. And incase u aren't familliar with the hitting power of those ships I mentioned they are very capable of kill 4 or 5 people in t1 frigates or cruisers all by there lonesome.

I guess wat I'm trying to say is u can win those unfair fights if u use tactics that are not induced by skills that are trained in game, have those ships and mainy other pounded me into the ground repeatedly, he'll yes, but contrary to wat u said about losing is not fun it was some of the most adrenlime pumping fights that I lost, and I did have fun. I even learnt from those loses. And some of those nasty people u refer to arnt so nasty cause afterwards they would suggest thing that we could have done better and helped us to learn.

So if u want to meet some nice null sec people who arnt bullies I invite u to convo me in game and we mite sort something out. We mite even teach u so e tricks allong the way.

Deleted and reposted to correct some bad mistypes---------------After reading all the comments I feel I should give a more considered response.

There is no real end game in EVE, participating in Null Sec is not any more valid than running missions in a Golem, accumulating virtual wealth through production or trading or even running a High Sec war deccing corp, or even playing with social engineering.

"So now you're saying that I only got ganked because I purposely set out to do so, and any new player unknowingly stepping through that same gate wouldn't suffer the same fate? "

Well, a new player would be aware of the risk, given the number of low sec warnings that they would have clicked through to get there. Even if there was no gate camp, the NPC ships would have finished them off should they have tried to get a closer look at the Null Sec astroids. The same would be true of the mission and exploration content.

However, all of this has already been posted by people far more articulate than me, so I'll try to add something different to the discussion.

I find what I enjoy about EVE in comparison to other games is the same as the difference I found between Morrowind and Oblivion. Oblivion was a very friendly game, unmodded all content was scaled to the level of the player. While this made everything accessible, it also made the game boring. There was no emotional investment in my success or otherwise, there was no fear and there was no elation. Morrowind was different. In the unmodded game there were no-go areas, at least until you learnt the game and got better gear. In that game there was fear, there was dread and there was a genuine sense of achievement once you started to overcome the perils of the environment. I played for Morrowind a lot longer than Oblivion.

EVE, even for a solo player like me, has a lot to do. I run missions, I defend my interests, I explore, and I dabble in low sec PVP in cheap disposable ships. Infact my current endgame aim is sneaky solo PVP, just for the challenge.

Having read all of the above, it is immediately apparent that there is nothing, any eve player can say or do, that would encourage you to actually give the game a fair go.

You essentially have created a straw argument based on a flawed premise, that guarantees a given result, and then point to the result as proof.

As others have said, if I created a level one gnome mage and ran into barrens (on a pvp server) the chances of me making it very far are pretty much zero, ergo WOW is full of bullies.

What has set the hackles up are use of such strong adjectives, "evil", "bullies", and the such like.

It is entirely possible (if you are where I suspect) that if you had been met these same pilots one gate previous (i.e. low sec) they would have just passed you by (for example my alliance operates a NBSI policy in 0.0, but NRDS in low sec).

This is not ganking, it is war...

An alliance in the south CVA several months ago, was caught by a nasty bug/event where all of their soverignty dropped, they effectively woke up one morning and found their armour and clothes gone.

Did their enemies (ones they had been fighting for years bowl in and attack? No, in fact it was the very enemies (Ushra Kahn, AAA, etc) that stood guard and defended them until what had happened was reversed.

The thing with eve is that in simple terms "all is fair in love and war..." and I would happily shoot my enemy in game with no warning given a chance... but if I met that same person in RL tomorrow, I would buy him a beer.

As with any new player, the eve community opened it's arms to you, and attempted to offer advice, and suggestions on how you could get your "fun" in at least the short term.

Yet you shunned us, and then declared that eve is newbie unfriendly, when in fact you turned away the best source of info any new player would have, the existing players.

Good game design has nothing to do with producing a maximum amount of fun for a maximum number of players. It is about designing a game that your target audience will find enjoyable. This might come as a shock to you, but Tobold the Ultimate Solo-Hero Carebear King of the Wowzorz was not exactly the target audience. Your argument is the equivalent of saying Dostoevsky is bad writing because he did not write to produce a maximum amount of enjoyment for a maximum amount of readers.

So riddle me this, if "good game design produces a maximum amount of fun for a maximum number of players," and, "I *tend* towards having middle-of-the-road opinions," are you not pretty much just saying if a game is not fun for you it is bad game design?

Because we are disputing semantics. Everybody agrees on the basic facts: Anyone entering nulsec without preparation or an army will get shot down by other players very fast. Which means there are players waiting around most gates into nulsec most of the day with the sole purpose of shooting down other players who come through the gates.

Now I'm using strong judgemental terms to describe that situation as ganking and bullying. And the EVE fans prefer to see that sort of gameplay as strategic warfare. They are worried that me using strong negative terms will cast EVE in a bad light. So they are trying to convince me that I am "wrong". Which isn't even possible, because none of the facts of the case are in dispute. We just disagree on whether EVE being extremely harsh and players killing each other in asymetric PvP is a good thing or a bad thing.

That is a matter of personal preference, it is like arguing with somebody because he doesn't like brokoli, it is impossible to change his mind.

@Tobold Speaking for my response, I was not trying to tell you that you were wrong, just trying to outline other ways to approach the game.

One point I would be interested in seeing you address is the comparison between the accessibility of 0.0 content in EVE and Raid content in WOW, as they have been compared a number of times in this comments thread.

I don't really have time to read all 165 of the lengthy comments so I will be brief. I don't think you truly understand what asymmetric gaming is. By your definition any game where the sides are not carefully controlled in number and ability would be asymmetric. By your definition WoW itself, even with the 'sandbox' being carefully policed, is asymmetric. In fact, I would challenge you that there is not a single symmetric MMORPG out there, and many video games in general have asymmetric elements.

For more on the topic: http://5orhigher.blogspot.com/2010/05/uneven-is-not-unfair.html

Okay, I lied, I went through and read most of the 165 comments. While some other players have brought up posts similar to mine I wanted to just respond to one thing you said:

You had mentioned that the degree of asymmetry in WoW PvP was less than that in Eve and as a result the PvP was more 'fair'. I have to disagree with your fundamental thesis that symmetry and game balance are the same thing. Since the only major asymmetry in Arena play besides group composition is gear the effects of that asymmetry are far more important.

In Eve there are so many points of asymmetry, ship type, fitting, pilot skills, etc. That you are more like to get into a fight where it is unknown who has the clear advantage and where strategy and cunning can win the day.

Both venues rely on skill and execution, but in WoW the skill is predominantly twitch motor skills while in Eve the skill is in ship knowledge, fitting, and combat decisions. A pilot who knows how to handle jumping into a gate camp will likely live, a pilot who doesn't will likely get podded, regardless of ship type.

@ToboldConsidering the vast amount of replies this post is getting it is understandable that it would be hard to keep up with, but if you get a chance at some point to go back and reply to some of the questions, and the more developed arguments it would probably improve the quality of the thread of conversation. My own personal question isn't that important but some of the other statements people have made really seemed to have a lot of merit and it is disappointing to never see your take on them.

In fact, I would challenge you that there is not a single symmetric MMORPG out there

I think you will find a dozen posts on my blog where I am saying exactly that: The advancement based nature of MMORPGs makes it nearly impossible for PvP in MMORPGs to be as symmetric as lets say Team Fortress 2 or Counterstrike. But I'm not asking for total symmetry here, I'd settle for something like WAR scenarios where at least the numbers and levels of players on both sides are roughly even.

nothing, any eve player can say or do, that would encourage you to actually give the game a fair go

Interesting use of the word "fair". So what you are saying is that writing on a blog has a higher standard of required "fairness" than playing EVE? Well, you guys are telling me that New Eden is a harsh place, but boy have I got news for you: The real world is even harsher!

It's like running into a 10 man WoW raid solo, and get disappointed because you got killed instantly.

That is one of the fundamental misunderstandings that 150 EVE commenters can't seem to understand: I'm not disappointed at all that I got killed instantly. I'm disappointed because I was killed by players, which A) to me appears to show some kind of malice, and B) suggests that a significant part of the EVE player base spends a significant amount of time gatecamping. As I said, I'm not interested in an endgame where my job is gatecamping. WoW has NPCs for that.

It is 7 am here. I spent the last 8 hours sleeping, not answering comments. My apologies.

The other problem is that I answered the same comment a dozen times, and nobody is listening. I still get comments saying "Doh, if you don't want to get shot down, don't enter nulsec", which has absolutely nothing to do with the argument that I am making.

"Interesting use of the word "fair". So what you are saying is that writing on a blog has a higher standard of required "fairness" than playing EVE? Well, you guys are telling me that New Eden is a harsh place, but boy have I got news for you: The real world is even harsher!"

You keep saying that everyone ignores your point and that nobody listens to what you say, but...

all I can see is you saying that EVE is not as popular as WoW. No, you're not "defending" WoW. I appreciate that. But it seems to me that you *are* saying that WoW is representative of "better" game design than EVE.

Ok.

Your blog is to a significant extent about game design.

Fine.

But how is "more popular" equivalent to "better"?

I believe Lady GaGa is a very popular artist right now. Does that make her music "better" than that made by Flying Lotus? If so, why? Because she makes more money?

I don't understand how you can judge/review "entering nulsec" and thus an entire game based on doing it once. Do it a dozen times or something, peak vs. other hours. That'd be more interesting and more conclusive. Getting blown up once (on purpose) serves no point but to stir the flame pot.

sid67 a few days ago made the perfect point in this whole debate btw. EVE is _not_ a sandbox game, in the sense that you can "do whatever you want." Play Second Life for that. EVE is a game about space-domination. Understanding the game that way makes your nul sec misadventure completely sensible; even if it isn't the kind of game for you.

Your problem is not that you ultimately decided "this is not my thing," but that you said "this is bad design," which *implies* (even if it doesn't assert) that it's bad for "everyone". Like telling someone's sports team they suck.

There is generally a high correlation between quality and popularity, as I’m sure you know. Lady Gaga is a different genre than Flying Lotus and therefore cannot be compared in the same way… as I’m sure you know. Popularity does not create good game design, but good game design does usually create popularity.

You know this, and yet you still ask the ridiculous hypothetical “does popularity equal quality” question that we all know the answer to. Let’s stop pretending to be so analytical when common sense will do. This is a problem a lot of the comments on this topic have had.

But I don't understand what you write either. I meant to pose a question, looking for an answer. I meant to illustrate it with a rhetorical question. If that offended you, I'm very sorry.

Perhaps it's a fair point to say that different musical genres can't be compared. Yet you posit as axiomatic that good game design usually creates popularity. You say that "we all know the answer" to the question whether popular equals good, and by your reasoning I take it that the universal answer is "no", but games are somehow different?

I happen to think that Flying Lotus is great. His audience is smaller than many other artists, and I am sure that some music bloggers (they do exist, right?) are right now typing out damning commentaries of his latest album: "For the last seven years I have consitently explained on this blog that I completely oppose the use of strings in music. Someone told me that there are string samples in track five. So I set out to buy the album and turned on the fifth track. There are string samples in track five! This is really bad music (in my opinion)".

You lost a ship, they got your salvage, seems like they wound up the better off to me...

"The point of flying into nulsec was to show that this asymmetric PvP in EVE is the rule, not the exception."

How does attempting to prevent a nullsec corp's industrialists from playing the game and getting blown up for it prove that this is the rule? In my experience most combat in EVE isn't one sided to the point of gank unless you are either reckless or stupid enough to walk into a situation where you know you can't survive. The majority of instances of combat in my experience are of small gang warfare where more depends on tactics than numbers. An example from my personal experience, a pair of command ships versus a fleet of four battleships plus support can easily go either way depending on how you move those battleships.

On the other hand, most of the times you will be killed is when all alone and it will be through ganking. Rarely from more than 1 or 2 ships though. On the other hand, during my first year of playing and actively attempting to mine in low sec I had only racked up 7 ship losses in total and not all of those from player pirates. To say that the majority of your deaths will be from ganking is akin to saying most car accidents are 10 minutes from the home, you spend most of your time in the optimum situation for it therefore it will happen more often. That does not automatically extend to mean that it happens often. (You're experiment is akin to proving a high accident frequency by backing your car into a tree.)

"Being ganked when entering nulsec is "normal"."

But entering nulsec is NOT normal.

"EVE is institutionalized bullying. "Would you call it bullying to have your pawn taken in chess when you place it in front of a rook? A ship, a clone, time, these are all resources, pieces in the game. Those players were expending their resources being the rook. You choose to expend yours by placing a pawn in a position to check their entire back line, and in so doing also placing yourself in the rook's kill zone. Expecting their response or not, you have yet to prove that this says anything about their personality and character other than that they aren't stupid and are playing a game.

"But for now it suffices to say that I think it isn't very good game design, based on the assumption that good game design produces a maximum amount of fun for a maximum number of players."

EVE has very good game design. It is not however in the "MAoFfaMNoP", Vaudeville, genre. It is built to cater to a niche and has never, not at any point, claimed otherwise. To accuse it of being bad design on those grounds is akin to claiming Alien is a bad movie on the grounds of it being a bad comedy.

On the whole, your argument is shallow, offensive and full of holes. I still don't understand what your point really is other than that you don't like this form of PvP. Fine you don't like it, I don't care. I do care that you add a bunch of additional riders disparaging people of good character simply because you happen to not like it. I also care that you make irrational, illogical and baseless arguments because they are painful to read.

What idiot brings his weaker force into a meeting engagement with a larger one? Fleets melt away from larger threats all the time. Death is way too consequential in EVE, to easily support a throw it away mentality.

I am sorry but the point you proved is that if you want to be an idiot you can easily find someone to gank you.

Null sec fleet roams--the littler forces hide, equal to larger forces chase. If the numbers are about equal most FCs will play a cat and mouse game trying to get an advantage--but its interesting PVP.

You really did charge the Stormwind guards on this one, and then drew your conclusion. It would hold far more weight if you looked for a fair fight.

Its not a good test of PVP.

However you want to drawn the conclusions for this test (which is a bad test)--I am sorry you don't like EVE. It's a deep and interesting game nothing like WOW. On the other hand I have quit EVE more than any other game, ever. Including rage-quits after loosing my fist BS in a lowsec pirate gank.

First boss kills don't compare to the emotional highs and lows that are available to the EVE player.

"Talking of which: I don't consider "bully" to be an insult at the same level of "retard". There is even a game from Rockstar where you can play one. I just can't come up with a better word for somebody who finds enjoyment in gatecamping. Suggestions?"

Lets go with that. Now may I say that I find playing a border guard boring? You spend a lot of time waiting while nothing happens, and when something happens it is most often nothing much, just a single illegal immigrant. In the rare case of an enemy invasion it turns out you can't do much either, except running for help.

And no, I don't know that there is a "generally high correlation between quality and popularity".

For music or books I do agree that there isn't much correlation between quality and popularity. In neither direction, something popular isn't automatically bad either.

For games there is a hitch to the story: Games require a significantly higher capital to make than a song or a book. And to some extent additional money spent on a game improves its quality, for example through better bug testing or nicer graphics. Thus to have the money to make better games, a game company needs to make popular games. There are few ultra-low budget games of very high quality. Thus popularity is more closely correlated to quality for games than for other media.

Tobold mate, having ppl NOT put up a fight against gatecamps is the whole POINT of camping gates! the SOLE PURPOSE of camping gates is NOT to protect territory, but to gank unsuspecting haulers hopefully carrying valuable loot.

there is NOTING MORE satisfying for the general EvE pvp'er then to get someone hard earned loot, especially if it was gotten effortlessly.

I've been playing EvE long enough to realize that "fair fight" doesn't exist in their vocabulary..

the more UNeven fight (in their favor obviously) the better the fight.

As somebody who has spent hours camping (0.0 entry) gates, I'm going to have to disagree with that strongly. Gate camping is part of routine maintenance of your space, exerting influence so hostiles can't just wander through your space and kill miners and such. It's something you do when there's nothing interesting going on, it's incredibly boring and people who can afford stuff worth stealing very rarely jump through without a scout (unless, as in one memorable case, they are drunk).

Gate camping is part of routine maintenance of your space, exerting influence so hostiles can't just wander through your space and kill miners and such. It's something you do when there's nothing interesting going on, it's incredibly boring and people who can afford stuff worth stealing very rarely jump through without a scout

I'm disappointed because I was killed by players, which A) to me appears to show some kind of malice, and B) suggests that a significant part of the EVE player base spends a significant amount of time gatecamping. As I said, I'm not interested in an endgame where my job is gatecamping. WoW has NPCs for that.I'm assuming then that you play WoW on a PvE server, there are plenty of times I was killed by Horde outside a Raid while getting started, we didn't just all "get along." Additionally, your assumption that nullsec endgame is "gate camping" is patently wrong. And your assumption that a 'significant' part of the EVE player base spends a significant amount of time gatecamping is also wrong. You are using one flawed experimental scenario to draw massively inaccurate conclusions about the game.

On a related not - more popular does not equal better in ANY media; books, music, games, movies, tv, etc. If this were true about games then Farmville would be one of the best game designs in the world. Even within the MMORPG subgenre it is dangerous to say "more players = better" because you really aren't looking at any quality metrics. If you want to form an opinion that one game is superior to another that is fine, but to do so just based on population is faulty.

This place is looking more like a very hard-to-read forum than ever these last few days :)

Games require a significantly higher capital to make than a song or a book.

I see what you did leaving out films there. ;)

But I do agree with what you said there about quality. But it seems to me that this is really limited to polish, and actually applies everywhere. Major book publishers put out books that are prettier, use better paper etc. Large studios spend way more time and money on the production of their albums etc.

Previously, you identified a number of such shortcomings in EVE, like the poor UI. I'd also add that the Mac version appears to be a bit crap. Improving that sort of stuff would probably increase popularity by itself – for any game, regardless of niche. But this latest discussion has been about game design issues (and actually fellow players' behaviour). Those kinds of things are all (presumably) intentionally implemented already at the design stage. They directly affect the titles popularity, no doubt, but they really say nothing of quality.

I'd argue that the only really poor quality in a game's design is stuff where you force players to do stuff they don't want to do in order to get to the bits they do want to do. In the early days of the WoW arena, many people felt compelled to do arena battles to get gear they intended to use in raids. That strikes me as poor quality. I'm sure there's loads of stuff like that in EVE too, although I've only been back in for a day now so I really don't know.

Your gank... border guarding experience doesn't seem to qualify here though, since you actually achieved exactly what you were looking for, no doubt disliking every minute of it!

Hi there. I posted to correct a hilarious mischaracterization of the purpose of 0.0 gate camping, not in reply to the OP.

Tovolds' wow mindset is incompatible with EVE, so his point isn't deeply concerning to me. He doesn't like games where survival is a challenge, and that's fine. I do take issue with his rendering moral judgment on people for playing a game he doesn't like, but this has been covered more articulately by others.

Why does everybody think that? Getting gatecamped was an interesting experience, which I didn't dislike at all, because I was expecting it. It is because I *didn't* have any PvP intentions that I didn't mind getting shot down, I never expected to achieve anything beyond making sure that gatecamping is as frequent as everybody told me it was.

It is because I *didn't* have any PvP intentions that I didn't mind getting shot down, I never expected to achieve anything beyond making sure that gatecamping is as frequent as everybody told me it was.

Wait you are saying a sample of 1 is statistically significant for your experiment.

It sounds like Eve is a game where geopolitical boundaries are and alliances are a major part of the game play. If that's the case, "fairness" is only going to be meaningful in the context of those boundaries and alliances.

In that light, it sounds like Tobold experienced a boarder incident. Applying a sportive context to something like that doesn't make sense.

A boarder crossing like that is comparable to some small company violating one of Apple's patents. A company like that is going to get squashed like a bug in court. It doesn't make sense to interpret a court battle like that as a sportive competition. A boarder incident is similar.

It sounds like the game of travelling in nulsec is a geopolitical game of diplomacy, subterfuge, and overt war as opposed to a sportive PvP combat game. So if you like playing that kind of game, then Eve sounds fine. If you are looking for Battlegrounds or some other sportive PvP combat, it sounds like Eve for the most part won't provide that (unless you decide to set up your own league).

Calling the geopolitical play in Eve as "institutionalized bullying" may be functionally correct, but it also implies a moral judgement about the fairness of the conduct that is largely devoid of the necessary contextual grounding. If a police officer tackles a suspect fleeing the scene of a crime is the officer Brutally and Violently Compromising that individuals personal liberty? Functionally yes, but ethically such a description would be way off base.

Also I would expect that there is more to the geopolitical play than guarding gates.

But also, you did point out in the post and then several times in the comments that you "don't like" unfair fights and that the people committing these attacks are "evil" (on a small scale). To some, it may have come across as you simply didn't have fun.

more popular does not equal better in ANY media; books, music, games, movies, tv, etc. If this were true about games then Farmville would be one of the best game designs in the world.

You can't make such general statements like that, you have to respect the genre when making these comparisons. For what it is and what it's meant to do, Farmville does have good game design. Popularity and quality will vary sometimes, but that much is obvious, nothing is ever perfectly equal in the real world. But you really can't argue that a high quality product won't usually become popular in it's genre.

And quality is different for each person only when you're focusing on personal subjectivity. When a group subjectively decides that a product is of high quality, it generally becomes popular. Popularity is mostly a measurement of how much quality a group sees in something.

The Twilight books became popular because for the intended audience and genre they were designed well. Now they may be more famous for their legions of haters, but that itself isn't popularity.

I never expected to achieve anything beyond making sure that gatecamping is as frequent as everybody told me it was.

I don't understand how a single experience proves your statement. Yes, gate camps at CERTAIN jumpgates can be common place. But isn't like all of nullsec is on lockdown and a giant Members Only club.

I don't think you really made it clear what exactly you were trying to prove or how exactly what happened to you proved it. Additionally, I'm not sure how PVP killing = bullying. You got popped and ended up back at your clone. Unlike WoW you weren't corpse camped and griefed, you merely died and was set back a bit. I also don't quite understand why death resulting from PVE content or PVP content is different in your mind. In both cases if you go into a situation unprepared you run the risk of death. You could have gone into that gate camp prepared and likely escaped. If I try to run a level 3 mission in a shuttle I die there too.

In the real world "ganking" is mostly prevented by the threat of retribution of some kind.

This is how modern societies function.

We know full well that without the threat of punishment there will be alot more lawlessness about.

Ganking in MMOs is the side effect of being able to act with relative anonymity and having no fear of retribution.

Years ago, there was a space combat MMO called planetarion. Not unlike a hugely simplified version of EVE. It was pure pvp. What separates this from newer more complicated games is that you always knew who just attacked you and where they lived and you had the freedom to attack them back or send your (protective "big brother")

In this environment and without any in-game features, players soon banded together on irc into alliances for increased security and richer rewards. We put tags in our names to denote membership and ward off random attackers. Fury & Elysium I recall being in. we raided other alliances galaxies ,defended each other and joined forces with other alliances. It was awesome.

In a lot of MMOs now, PvP is effectively every man for himself. there's really no fun in that.

If I have to die either I prefer it's for a reason (wow battlegrounds) or I have scope for retribution to be exacted.